9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prays for quashing of the order dated 27-12-2001 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), dated 31-12-2001 and the order dated 6-1-1989 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-I, Kanpur and the consequential relief. 2. On the writ petition, Court has directed to file the counter affidavit. The writ petition has not yet been admitted. Amendment application has been filed on 13-2-2004 for the amendment of the writ petition, by which order of the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CEGAT") dated 24-5-2002 is sought to be challenged and prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 24-5-2002 passed by CEGAT in appeal no. E/882/2002-A, Dr. Sabharwal Mfg. Labs Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the impugned order dated 6-1-1989, which is annexure-4 to the writ petition. Petitioner filed the present writ petition even though against the impugned order appeal lies before the Tribunal under Section 35-B of the Excise Act. It also appears that the petitioner has also filed appeal no. E-882/2002-A against the impugned order before CEGAT and the said appeal has been decided vide order dated 24-5-2002. The fact that the petitioner has filed the appeal before the CEGAT has not been brought on record. The decision of the Tribunal dated 24-5-2002 has also not been brought on record immediately. Amendment application has been filed on 13-2-2004 after twenty months, which came up before this Court on 17-2-2004. On that date, this Court orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner has not chosen the proper remedy. Initially in 1989 though alternative remedy by way of appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner was available still writ petition was filed bearing Writ Petition No. 533 of 1989, which was dismissed on 26-2-2001 on the ground of alternative remedy. Petitioner again challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) by way of the present writ petition in the year 2002 though there was alternative remedy against the said order. Despite the writ petition being filed by the petitioner, petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal. The said appeal was decided on 24-5-2002. Thus, after the decision of the Tribunal, present writ petition has become infructuous. Amendment application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... open to a party aggrieved hereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course. Secondly, the doctrine has no application when the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice We may add that where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can entertain a writ petition. 7 . In the case of Union of India and another v. M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd., Balrampur and Another - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 71 (All.) (supra), order of the Tribunal was dated 5-12-2001 and the writ petition was entertained in the year 2002 but on the object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
