9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed this Writ Petition on 01.03.2017 challenging the order passed by the Respondent - HELD THAT:- There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to that alternative remedy provided under the statute. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR VERSUS DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND OTHER [ 1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DER Heard Mr. Joseph Prabakar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.Rajasekar, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Respondent by Order-in-Original No. 19/2014(M-IV) dated 10.11.2014 had passed an order determining the liability under the provisions of the Central Excise Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te. In this context, it must be recapitulated here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Collector of Central Excise -vs- Dunlop India Limited [(1985) 1 SCC 260] has succinctly explained the legal position relating to the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction as follows:- 3. Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged. Having regard to that legal position, this Court does not express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter. In the result, the Writ Petition, which cannot be entertained, is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
