9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Moradabad, dated 25-8-1986 by which the application of the petitioner made for refund of the excise duty or for granting an additional rebate has been rejected on the ground inter alia, that it was time barred. 2. The petitioner's Counsel urged that the view taken by the Asstt. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng time-barred did not arise. When we go through the judgment and order of the Asstt. Collector we find that the Asstt. Collector has given a number of points for holding that the claim of the petitioner was time barred. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that it will not be necessary for this Court to go into the various points decided by the Asstt. Collector on the question of limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssist us in clinching the controversy in favour of the petitioner. We may make a reference to another decision of the Supreme Court reported in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Limited and Others (AIR 1985, SC 330). In this case the Supreme Court observed: "Art. 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the preliminary ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. There is substance in the argument of the petitioners' Counsel that a direction be issued to the Collector, before whom appeals are filed, to decide the appeal of the petitioner, when filed, within five months, we issue a direction to this effect. With these observations we dismiss the writ petition summarily. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
