9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to why the prices charged by the petitioner for the soft drink bottles to their ultimate customers should be not taken as the assessable value and consequently why sum of Rs. 31.73 lakh should not be recovered as differential excise duty on the clearance of soft drink bottles for the period 1-9-1985 to 28-2-1986. The second show cause notice dated 5-9-1986 pertained to the period 1-3-1986 to 3-8-1986 and the differential excise duty sought to be recovered thereunder was in the sum of Rs. 21.22 lakh. 2. The petitioner's case in the writ petition was that the respondents were seeking to levy excise duty on printed soft drinks bottles on which excise duty had already been paid, this time by adding the cost of printing the label. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the Collector of Appeals had not taken a decision on the appeal of the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition seeking the quashing of the said two show cause notices. Meanwhile on 16-10-1986 the Assistant Collector decided these two further show cause notices also against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Collector (Appeals). 5. When the writ petition came up for hearing first on 22-10-1986, the counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the statutory appeals filed by the petitioner on 15-10-1986 and 20-10-1986 were pending decision before the Collector (Appeals). This Court deferred the hearing of the writ petition. 6. Thereafter the case kept ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 22-11-1990 for the periods, 1-1-1985 to 28-2-1986 and 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1986. On 13-12-1990 this Court directed that "status quo regarding entries in the accounts in respect of the order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 29-10-90/6-11-90 shall be maintained." 9. Thereafter, an application CM. No. 1179/91 was filed by the petitioner to amend the writ petition to challenge the fresh show cause notice. It appears that the pleadings in this application were completed only in December, 1994. Thereafter the matter kept getting adjourned on several dates and ultimately the amendment application was allowed on 13-9-1996. On 17-2-2000 an application, being C.M. No. 7368/96, filed by the petitioner seeking permission to utilize the amount credited b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under a statute which provides an alternate remedy, Mr. Sanghi submitted that since the matter has been pending in this Court since 1986 and Rule has been issued, the Court is bound to decide the writ petition on merits. In support of his submission that the writ petition ought not to be dismissed on the ground of existence of an alternate remedy, Mr. Sanghi relied upon the judgment of this Court in Modi Carpets Ltd. v. Union of India, 1997 (91) E.L.T, 285. He also placed reliance on certain other judgments of the High Courts in Union of India v. Rollatainers Ltd., 1991 (55) E.L.T. 317 (Karnataka), Thressiamma v. Union of India, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 602 (Kerala), Carbonink Products v. Government of India, 1992 (61) E.L.T. 19 (Mad.). He also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court can refuse to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 where there exists alternative remedy, which is adequate and efficacious, unless a party complains of fraud or absence of jurisdiction in the authority before whom the alternate remedy lies. In this connection the decisions in Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam v. Nareshwar Sahai Mathur, (1995) 1 S.C.C. 21, Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavulu Hanumayamma (1996) 6 S.C.C. 199 and Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 S.C. 603 may be noticed. In Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., 1985 (19) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) = AIR 1985 S.C. 330, while deprecating the resort to the filing of the writ petition under Article 226 in respect of a matter for which remedy lay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en if, as contended by the petitioner, the matter stands covered in its favour by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra), we do not see any reason why the petitioner cannot rely upon this decision in the proceedings pending before the Assistant Collector, Respondent No. 5. We are certain that the Assistant Collector will take note of such a submission and pass appropriate consequential orders. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the statutory proceedings under the Act pending at the stage of show cause notice ought not to be interfered with in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We are satisfied that the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
