Tariff misclassification and ultra vires excise demand justified writ relief despite alternative remedies.

Metallised yarn in the form of thin strips of laminated polyester film was treated as an article of polyester under Entry 15A(2), not as synthetic yarn under Entry 18, because the tariff entries had to be read harmoniously within their proper fields. The resulting demand based on Entry 18 was ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The High Court further held that alternative remedies did not bar writ relief where the demand itself was unlawful and a threat to property. The impugned demand notices were quashed, further proceedings were restrained, and costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether metallised yarn in the form of thin strips of laminated polyester film was classifiable under Entry 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff or under Entry 18 as synthetic yarn; (ii) Whether the availability of alternative remedies barred the petitions challenging the demand notices.

Issue (i): Whether metallised yarn in the form of thin strips of laminated polyester film was classifiable under Entry 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff or under Entry 18 as synthetic yarn.

Analysis: The classification was governed by a harmonious reading of the competing tariff entries, keeping each entry within its proper field without narrowing Entry 15A(2) or expanding Entry 18. The material in question had already been held to fall specifically within Entry 15A(2) as an article of polyester and not within Entry 18 as synthetic fibrous yarn. The same settled interpretation applied to the present petitions.

Conclusion: The goods were held classifiable under Entry 15A(2) and not under Entry 18, and the demand based on Entry 18 was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of alternative remedies barred the petitions challenging the demand notices.

Analysis: A demand raised without jurisdiction and in breach of the settled legal position amounted to an ultra vires demand. In such a case, the existence of alternative remedies did not preclude recourse to writ jurisdiction, especially where the demand itself constituted an unlawful threat to property.

Conclusion: The petitions were maintainable despite alternative remedies.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand notices were quashed and further proceedings pursuant to them were restrained, with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax demand founded on a misclassification that is ultra vires and without jurisdiction can be challenged directly in writ proceedings notwithstanding alternative remedies.

---