Writ jurisdiction survives a time-barred appeal where adjudication shows patent procedural illegality and natural justice breach.

Writ jurisdiction was held available despite rejection of the statutory appeal as time-barred because a limitation-based refusal does not cure patent illegality, procedural infirmity, or breach of natural justice in the underlying adjudication. The adjudication order was also found unsustainable because the authority failed to address the pending approval application and the procedural requirements relevant to the stitching unit and captive consumption claim, while proceeding on an incomplete factual and procedural footing. The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred under the Central Excise law; (ii) whether the adjudication order was sustainable when the authority ignored the pending approval application and the applicable procedural requirements governing the stitching unit and captive consumption claim.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred under the Central Excise law.

Analysis: The writ petitioners had no prior knowledge of the adjudication order after the management changed, and the appeal was rejected only because the appellate authority lacked power to condone delay beyond the statutory limit. In such circumstances, the availability or exhaustion of the statutory appeal did not by itself bar certiorari. Where an inferior authority's action is tainted by patent illegality, procedural infirmity, or violation of natural justice, the writ court can intervene even if the appeal was not entertained on limitation.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the limitation-based rejection of the appeal did not prevent exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication order was sustainable when the authority ignored the pending approval application and the applicable procedural requirements governing the stitching unit and captive consumption claim.

Analysis: The authority proceeded on the footing that the stitching unit was outside the factory premises and that the benefit under the exemption regime was unavailable, but it did not properly deal with the earlier application seeking approval of the revised ground plan or the deeming effect claimed under the excise procedure. The assessment was thus made without properly addressing the relevant procedural framework and the factual plea that the stitching activity formed part of the same factory arrangement. This amounted to a procedural infirmity affecting the validity of the adjudication.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication was quashed and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh by the jurisdictional authority after hearing the writ petitioners and upon deposit of the amount directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may exercise certiorari jurisdiction notwithstanding a time-barred statutory appeal where the original adjudication suffers from patent procedural illegality or violation of natural justice, and such defects are not cured by the appellate refusal to entertain the matter.

---