Court dismisses Writ Petition under Central Excise Act, emphasizes appeal process over Writ Petition.

The Court held that the Writ Petition under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act was not maintainable as the order under Section 35F was treated as an order in appeal under Section 35G. The petitioners' request to substitute pre-deposit with a Bank Guarantee was rejected, emphasizing the need to follow the appeal process rather than resorting to a Writ Petition. The Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal and ruled out High Court interference, citing the Division Bench's determination on the nature of orders under Sections 35F and 35G. The Writ Petition was dismissed accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Acceptance of Bank Guarantee in lieu of pre-deposit under Section 35F.
3. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal and interference by the High Court.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the maintainability of the Writ Petition under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents raised an objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition, citing the availability of an alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 35G. The petitioners had approached the Appellate Tribunal seeking modification of an order under Section 35F, which was rejected. The petitioners then moved the High Court through the Writ Petition, arguing to accept a Bank Guarantee in place of pre-deposit as compliance with Section 35F. The Court considered the Division Bench's finding that an order under Section 35F is treated as an order in appeal under Section 35G, making the Writ Petition not maintainable.

2. Another issue discussed in the judgment is the acceptance of a Bank Guarantee in lieu of pre-deposit under Section 35F. The petitioners contended that by offering a Bank Guarantee, they were complying with the provisions of Section 35F, and the refusal by the Appellate Tribunal to modify its earlier order was an error of jurisdiction. However, the Court upheld the objection raised by the respondents, emphasizing that the Division Bench had already determined that challenging an order under Section 35F must be through an appeal under Section 35G, and not through a Writ Petition.

3. The judgment also delves into the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal and the potential interference by the High Court. The petitioners argued that when there is a question of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice, the High Court can interfere even if an alternate remedy exists. However, the Court, after considering the arguments from both sides, concluded that the Division Bench's finding regarding the nature of orders under Section 35F as orders in appeal under Section 35G was decisive. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable, following the precedent set by the Division Bench.

---