9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The writ petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order. - CWP-11732-2018 - - - Dated:- 10-5-2018 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACJ. AND MR. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate ORDER AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACJ. 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order-in-original dated 9/12.2.2018 (Annexure P- 3) passed by respondent No.3 deciding six show cause notices pertaining to six different bills of entry and re-determining the value in all the said notices by rejecting the value declared by the petitioner and imposing differential duty along with interest and penalty. 2. The petitioner is engaged in import of polyester spun yarn etc. which had fallen under OGL category. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Panchnama dated 29.6.2011 at the factory premises of the petitioner was issued to the Director of the petitioner. The adjudicating authority enhanced the value and confirmed the custom duty of ₹ 23,97,913/- and also levied the penalty of equal amount upon the petitioner. The goods were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on RF of ₹ 10 lakhs. Penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs was also imposed upon the Director of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had filed two appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the Tribunal ). The Tribunal vide order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-5) allowed the appeals of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition against the order dated 9/12.2.2018 (Annexure P-3). 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the averments made in the petition, we find that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The narration of facts noticed hereinbefore clearly shows that certain factual matrix is required to be established for which the first appellate authority would be proper forum instead of invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. ( See: N.T. Veluswami Thevar vs. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422 ; Municipal Council, Khurai vs. Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653 ; Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436 ; S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572 ; Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75 ; Kerala SEB vs. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293 ; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695; L.L. Sudhakar Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2001) 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509; Pratap Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 484 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2003) 1 SCC 72) . 17. In Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India, (2011) 14 SCC 337 , this Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Secy. of State v. Mask and Co., AIR 1940 PC 105. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine. 14. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. (speaking for the majority of the larger Bench) observed: (SCC p. 607, para 77) 77. So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226-or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32-is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. (See: G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192; CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, (1999) 1 SCC 472; Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 3 SCC 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
