9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1244 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of petition when efficacious statutory alternative remedy of appeal under section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944 (the CEA Act 1944) is available to the petitioner - HELD THAT - The Apex court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others 2014 (9) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT has held that when a statute provides for statutory appeal the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties. In the case of Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim 2017 (7) TMI 1414 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court has held that any petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be dismissed in limine where there is statutory provision of appeal. The Apex court in the case of Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2016 (3) TMI 1435 - SUPREME COURT has held that when statutory appeal is provided then the said remedy has to be availed. In the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. 2023 (2) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court has held that High Court can only interfere in the matters when disputed question of law are involved and not in the question of facts. In the present case no disputed question of law is involved. In the present case it is evident that sufficient opportunity of hearing through virtual mode was provided to the petitioner on 28.11.2024 13.12.2024 20.12.2024 27.12.2024 but neither the petitioner nor his authorised representative attended the personal hearings on the above dates. Thus the contention of the petitioner with regard to non-grant of opportunity of personal hearing is contrary to the record and is hereby rejected. Conclusion - The petitioner s writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal as provided under the Central Excise Act 1944. Petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered by the Court was whether the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner contended that the writ petition was justified due to the alleged denial of a personal hearing by the respondent authority. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The Court examined the legal framework concerning the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 when an alternative statutory remedy is available. It referenced several precedents, including:
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Court interpreted the precedents to conclude that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy generally precludes the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226, except in exceptional circumstances. The Court determined that none of the exceptions, such as a breach of fundamental rights or a violation of the principles of natural justice, were applicable in this case. Key Evidence and Findings The Court found that the petitioner was provided with multiple opportunities for a personal hearing through virtual means on specified dates, but neither the petitioner nor his authorized representative attended these hearings. This finding was crucial in rejecting the petitioner's claim of being denied a personal hearing. Application of Law to Facts Applying the legal principles to the facts, the Court concluded that the petitioner's contention regarding the denial of a personal hearing was unfounded. The Court noted that the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity to present their case, thus negating any claim of a violation of natural justice. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Court addressed the petitioner's reliance on the Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. case, clarifying that the case did not support the petitioner's position since no disputed question of law was involved in the present matter. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's claim of not being heard was contrary to the record. Conclusions The Court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and the absence of any exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing this remedy. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning The Court stated, "In view of the aforesaid enunciation of the law laid down by the Apex Court, we do not find it proper to entertain this petition." Core Principles Established The judgment reinforced the principle that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy generally precludes the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. It also affirmed that procedural opportunities provided by statutory authorities must be availed, and claims of procedural injustice must be substantiated by the record. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Court determined that the petitioner's writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal as provided under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court allowed the petitioner to raise all grounds presented in the writ petition in the appeal process.
|
