1996 (11) TMI 79 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reclassification of cotton canvass and duck fabrics under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2. Validity of the orders issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.
3. Alternative remedy of appeal under Sections 35 and 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reclassification of Cotton Canvass and Duck Fabrics:
The petitioners, a leading textile company, had initially classified and cleared cotton canvass and duck fabrics under Tariff Item 19-I(i) of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. After the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 came into force, the petitioner filed classification lists under Chapter Headings 52.05/52.06, which were approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The petitioners argued that the reclassification proposed by the officers, which led to higher excise duties, was contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Statutory instructions of the Government of India. They contended that the reclassification discriminated against them, making their products costlier compared to other manufacturers.

2. Validity of the Orders Issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise:
The petitioners sought to quash the orders issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, which proposed the reclassification of their products. The respondents opposed the claims, arguing that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of filing appeals against the impugned orders. The respondents also contended that classification issues are pure questions of fact and should be addressed by the authorities, not the courts. The petitioners countered by citing Order No. 10/93 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which classified the disputed fabrics under Heading No. 52.06 of the C.E.T., and a subsequent Trade Notice No. 42/93 issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, which supported their classification under Heading 52.05.

3. Alternative Remedy of Appeal:
The court noted that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Sections 35 and 35B of the Act. The court referred to a Division Bench judgment in "Madura Coats Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai," which held that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted when an alternative remedy exists. The court emphasized that the statutory scheme provides a comprehensive appellate mechanism, including appeals to the Supreme Court under certain circumstances. The court concluded that the petitioners should avail the alternative remedy of appeals, and dismissed the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to file appeals within 30 days.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners should avail the alternative remedy of filing appeals against the impugned orders. The court directed the appellate authorities to decide the appeals on merits and in accordance with law, without considering the question of limitation. All contentions of the parties were left open to be urged before the appellate authorities.