1994 (10) TMI 66 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the order of the Collector (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad for dismissing the petitioner's appeal due to non-compliance with Section 35F requirements.
2. Interpretation of the effect of a court order vacating the earlier decision of the Collector (Appeals) on the petitioner's application for waiver.
3. Consideration of alternative remedies available to the petitioner and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order of the Collector (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal for failing to deposit the duty demanded. The petitioner had applied for a waiver of the pre-deposit condition under Section 35F, which was initially rejected. However, a previous writ petition allowed by the High Court directed the Collector (Appeals) to reconsider the waiver application. Despite the court's order, the Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal without addressing the waiver application. The High Court deemed this dismissal as illegal and contrary to the procedure outlined in Section 35F.

2. The High Court clarified that the effect of its order vacating the previous decision of the Collector (Appeals) was immediate and did not depend on communication to the Collector. Therefore, the petitioner's application for waiver was revived upon the court's order, and the Collector (Appeals) was obligated to consider the waiver application before dismissing the appeal. The High Court emphasized that the dismissal of the appeal without addressing the waiver application was procedurally incorrect and amounted to an illegal act on the part of the Collector (Appeals).

3. The Union of India argued that the petitioner could seek recourse through the Customs Tribunal, indicating an alternative remedy available. However, the High Court disagreed with this contention, stating that the Collector (Appeals) had acted in an irregular manner. The High Court highlighted that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from entertaining a writ petition, especially in cases where there are procedural irregularities or illegal acts. Consequently, the High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 and quashed the impugned order dated 14th September, 1994. The High Court directed the Collector (Appeals) to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law and the previous order of the High Court, staying the recovery of the disputed demand until the waiver application is disposed of.

In conclusion, the High Court found in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of following proper procedures and ensuring that administrative bodies act in accordance with the law.