Writ jurisdiction declines where an effective statutory appeal exists against Tribunal orders under the Central Excise framework.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ordinarily exercised where an effective statutory appeal is available to the same court, even though it may still be invoked for breach of natural justice. As a statutory appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available against the Tribunal's orders, the Karnataka HC declined to entertain the writ petition and rejected it, while granting liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the Tribunal's orders when a statutory appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available.

Analysis: The order notes that although writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked in cases involving breach of natural justice, such jurisdiction is not to be exercised as a matter of course where an effective statutory appeal lies to the same Court. As the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition.

Outcome: The writ petition was not entertained and was rejected, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

---