9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order by Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) regarding brand name on excisable goods and eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 1/93; Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226/227 despite statutory remedy under Section 35L of the Act. Issue 1: Challenge to CEGAT's order The petitioner contested the order by CEGAT questioning the fixing of another person's brand name on excisable goods, making it ineligible for Notification No. 1/93 benefit. Show cause notice was issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944, alleging the use of a registered brand name on goods manufactured by the petitioner. The petitioner manufactured cement under the brand name of DCC, which belonged to another entity, leading to the imposition of Central Excise Duty and penalty by the Collector. CEGAT upheld the duty and penalty but allowed Modvat credit if duty paying documents were produced within two months. Issue 2: Maintainability of writ petition The petitioner argued the writ petition's maintainability under Article 226/227 despite the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 35L of the Act. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the statutory remedy. The petitioner emphasized the importance of the questions involved and the absence of factual disputes, relying on legal precedents like L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI and Neo Sacks Limited v. CEGAT. The respondent, however, referred to Chanan Singh and Sons v. Collector of Central Excise, advocating against entertaining a writ petition when a statutory remedy exists. Analysis: The judgment delves into the interpretation of statutory remedies and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 in light of specific legal precedents. The court scrutinized the petitioner's reliance on L. Chandra Kumar's case and the contention that the statutory remedy under Section 35L did not bar the writ petition. The court disagreed with the observations that rendered the statutory remedy redundant, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory procedures before resorting to Article 226/227. Legal principles from various cases like Asstt. Collector C.E. v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes were invoked to underscore the importance of following statutory remedies and discouraging the misuse of writ jurisdiction for interim orders. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, aligning with previous decisions highlighting the exclusivity of statutory remedies provided under the Act.
|
