2017 (12) TMI 710 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - invocation of writ jurisdiction - Held that - In view of the fact that the petitioner was bona fide pursuing his remedies before this Court in this present petition, if appeal before the Appellate Commissioner is filed latest by 05.12.2017, the same shall be examined on merits without reference to limitation - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original by petitioner, statutory appellate remedies, entertaining writ petition directly, examination of appeal on merits, application of Supreme Court judgement, involvement of multiple remedies, dismissal of petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order-in-original issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The High Court noted that the statutory appellate remedies available to the petitioner were an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner and then before the Tribunal. The Court emphasized the principle that in taxing statutes where statutory appeals are provided, parties should exhaust such remedies before seeking relief through a writ petition. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition directly against the order-in-original based on this ground.

Regarding the petitioner's pursuit of remedies, the Court allowed the examination of the appeal on merits before the Appellate Commissioner without considering the limitation if the appeal was filed by a specified date. The petitioner's counsel referred to a Supreme Court judgement in a similar case, highlighting that the adjudicating authority should have followed the principles laid down in that judgement. Despite this argument, the Court noted that there were various other remedies available, which could be more appropriately considered by the Commissioner in the first instance.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, subject to the observations made. The judgement emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory appellate remedies in tax matters before seeking recourse through a writ petition. The Court acknowledged the relevance of the Supreme Court judgement cited by the petitioner's counsel but deemed that other available remedies should be pursued first for a comprehensive consideration of the case.