9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 and imposed a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- on the petitioner in WP.Nos.8836 and 8837 of 2017 being the in-charge of the petitioner Company. 3. Heard Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. These writ petitions are listed before this Court today for admission. 5. Admittedly, as against the order in original passed by the respondent, which is impugned in these writ petitions, a statutory appellate remedy lies before the Appellate Tribunal. However, 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 Butterf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wants to distinguish the said decision which is sought to be relied on by the petitioners. Needless to say that the question of applicability of a case law to a particular case depends upon the facts and circumstances of both cases and unless they are similar and one and the same, one cannot make emphasis on such particular case law or decision. But, at the same time, it is to be noted that this Court in this case is not expressing any view as to whether the Gandhimathi Appliances case would apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case or not, as it is for the next fact finding authority, namely, the Appellate Tribunal to go into the same and decide about its applicability. Since such fact finding exercise, which according to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -vs- Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Another reported in (2010) 4 SCC 772. iv) Metal Weld Electrodes -vs- CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2014 (299) ELT 3 DB. 8. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
