2007 (1) TMI 194 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 35H of the Excise Act.
2. Violation of natural justice in the Tribunal's decision.
3. Discretionary power of the High Court to entertain writ petitions despite alternative remedies.

Issue 1: Availability of alternative remedy under Section 35H of the Excise Act
The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition under Article 226, challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed duty demand but reduced the penalty. The Standing Counsel argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 35H of the Excise Act, making the writ petition not maintainable. The High Court noted that the petitioner did not show any special circumstances for bypassing the statutory reference application. The Court emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy should generally preclude the High Court from interfering unless strong grounds or exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.

Issue 2: Violation of natural justice in the Tribunal's decision
The petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to consider their submissions, constituting a violation of natural justice. However, the Court found that there was no evidence of the Tribunal denying an opportunity of hearing or violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner's argument that the Tribunal did not consider various submissions was not accepted as a violation of natural justice. The Court highlighted that the discretionary power to grant relief under Article 226 should be exercised judiciously, especially when alternative remedies are available.

Issue 3: Discretionary power of the High Court to entertain writ petitions despite alternative remedies
The High Court discussed various precedents emphasizing the discretionary nature of the power to grant relief under Article 226. It noted that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from granting relief if exceptional circumstances warrant it. The Court cited cases where the hierarchy of appeals provided by statute required parties to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court. Exceptions to the exhaustion of statutory remedies were noted, such as when the proceedings are ultra vires or violate principles of natural justice. The Court highlighted that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion, not compulsion.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 35H of the Excise Act, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the High Court's power to entertain writ petitions despite alternative remedies. The Court underscored the importance of exhausting statutory remedies and demonstrating exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing such remedies.