2017 (4) TMI 1170 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - statutory appellate remedy - the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court to entertain these writ petitions by contending that the first respondent has not applied a binding decision of the Tribunal made in Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III case, since the issue involved in the said case and the facts and circumstances of the present case are one and the same - Held that - the petitioners are not questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent in any manner. It is well settled that in fiscal matters, short circuiting the proceedings by way of filing the writ petitions cannot be entertained, unless the order passed was without jurisdiction or the same is erroneous on the face of it. It is held in those cases that when an alternative remedy is available, more particularly, in the cases of fiscal nature, invoking of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not permissible. When the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of appeal to file the appeal before the CESTAT, it is for them to file such appeal and canvass all the points. This Court exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to entertain these writ petitions only on the reason of availability of alternative remedy. The present writ petitions are not maintainable before this Court as the petitioners have to avail the alternative appellate remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore-18; Confirmation of differential duty and irregular Cenvat credit; Imposition of penalties; Failure to follow Tribunal's decision; Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ petitions in fiscal matters; Availability of alternative appellate remedy.

Analysis:

1. Challenging Commissioner's Order:
The petitioners in the writ petitions contested the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore-18. The impugned orders confirmed the demand of differential duty, irregular Cenvat credit, and imposed significant penalties under relevant sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. Failure to Follow Tribunal's Decision:
The petitioners sought the High Court's intervention, arguing that the Commissioner did not adhere to a binding decision of the Tribunal in the "Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III" case. However, the Court observed that the Commissioner provided reasons for not applying the Tribunal's decision due to the unavailability of crucial contract details and documents, indicating a distinction in the facts and circumstances of the cases.

3. Jurisdiction of High Court in Fiscal Matters:
The Court emphasized that in fiscal matters, bypassing statutory appellate remedies by filing writ petitions is not permissible unless the order is without jurisdiction or facially erroneous. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be invoked when an alternative remedy, such as an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, is available.

4. Availability of Alternative Appellate Remedy:
Considering that the petitioners had the option to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to avail the alternative appellate remedy within four weeks. The Court clarified that the petitions were not maintainable before the High Court solely due to the existence of an alternative remedy, and any appeal filed would be decided on its merits and in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the writ petitions challenging the Commissioner's order were not maintainable before the Court, emphasizing the importance of exhausting alternative appellate remedies in fiscal matters. The judgment underscored the principle that the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 should not be invoked when statutory appellate avenues are available to address grievances related to tax matters.