1998 (8) TMI 97 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The maintainability of a writ petition before the High Court bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court.

Summary:
The petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution was filed against an order passed by CEGAT confirming an order-in-original by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, related to the determination of excise duty or goods' value for assessment under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The respondents objected to the petition's maintainability, arguing that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition bypassing the statutory appeal to the Supreme Court. The petitioner cited a Supreme Court judgment but the Court clarified that the petitioner should not bypass the statutory appeal process. A similar argument was rejected in a previous case by another Division Bench of the Court.

In a Full Bench decision by the High Court of Bombay, it was held that when an appeal is provided to the Supreme Court against an order, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition challenging the same, as it would usurp the Supreme Court's powers. The Court, being bound by the previous Division Bench's view and in agreement with the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, dismissed the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, stating that the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act was available to the petitioner.