9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating impurity, ingots are put into furnace. While pure aluminium stands extracted by this process, the impurities are thrown out. This impurity is known as dross and skimmings. The contention of the petitioner is that no Excise duty is leviable on this dross and skimmings under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ("the Act" hereinafter). However, on June 18, 1977, Item No. 68 came to be inserted in the First Schedule, which provided that duty shall be levied at 10% ad valorem on all other goods not elsewhere specified. The Inspector, Central Excise, Sojat City, thereafter called upon the petitioner to take out a licence for the manufacture of dross and skimmings and to pay duty on them. The petitioner raised protest and contended that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. As regards the alternate remedy, it was contended by Mr. Mridul that the writ petition was admitted after a notice to the respondents. It would not be a sound exercise of discretion now to refuse to hear the petition on merits. The petition was admitted long back in 1977. It would be, therefore, against the well settled cannons of justice now to refuse the hearing on merits of the case. The submission of Mr. Joshi is that though the petition was admitted long back, the alternate remedy has not become time barred as yet. No prejudice is to be caused to the petitioner in case he exhausts the alternate remedy first before coming to this Court. 5. Admittedly, the alternate remedy wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Titagarh Paper Mills Company Ltd. - AIR 1983 S.C. 603 and Dunlop India Ltd. - 1985 (19) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) = AIR 1985 S.C. 330. In Titagarh's case, their Lordships observed that where the statute itself provides the petitioner with an efficacious alternate remedy by way of an appeal to the prescribed Authority, a second appeal to the Tribunal and thereafter to have the case stated to the High Court, it was not for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, ignoring, as it were, the complete statutory machinery. In the case of Dunlop India Ltd. - 1985 (19) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.), their Lordships observed :- "Article 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The alternate remedy has not become time barred as yet. The whole matter is still open to the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Collector and to contest the legality of Annexure 6 by showing that no licence for manufacturing is necessary and no duty is leviable on dross and skimmings under Item 68 of the First Schedule. It is, thus, open to the petitioner still now to avail of the alternate remedy available to him under Chapter VIA of the Act. The matter would have been otherwise if the alternate remedy would have become barred for one or the other reason. No prejudice has been caused to the rights of the petitioner for availing the alternate remedy by the pendency of this writ petition since, 1977. 8. Mr. Mridul contended that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
