Alternative remedy and excise duty on laminated jute goods: writ relief may still lie, and lamination materials are not separately excisable.

The article states that writ relief may remain available despite an alternative statutory remedy where prior appellate and revisional remedies have already been unsuccessfully pursued and further recourse would be futile. It also explains that excise duty is chargeable only on manufacture of a new and distinct article; mere lamination or coating of jute goods with polythene or adhesive material does not change their essential character into a different excisable product. On that reasoning, duty cannot be imposed indirectly on the weight of lamination materials by treating it as part of the excisable goods, and such a demand would lack authority of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could be denied relief on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy. (ii) Whether laminated jute goods attracted excise duty on the differential weight representing the materials used for lamination.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could be denied relief on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The petitioner had already pursued the statutory appellate and revisional remedies in respect of the earlier order, and those remedies had been summarily rejected. In those circumstances, requiring the petitioner to again pursue the same route against the demand would be futile. The existence of an alternative remedy is a relevant consideration in writ jurisdiction, but it does not bar the Court from granting relief where the case otherwise justifies intervention.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected, and writ relief was held maintainable in the facts of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether laminated jute goods attracted excise duty on the differential weight representing the materials used for lamination.

Analysis: Excise duty is chargeable on manufacture of goods, and manufacture requires a transformation resulting in a new and different article with a distinct name, character or use. Mere coating or lamination of jute cloth with polythene or other adhesive material did not change the essential character of the jute goods into a different jute manufacture. The demand was framed on the difference between the weight of the laminated product and the original jute goods, which in substance represented the weight of the materials used for lamination. Such materials were not jute manufactures, and duty could not be levied indirectly on them through the impugned demand.

Conclusion: No excise duty was chargeable on the differential weight, and the impugned demand was without authority of law.

Final Conclusion: The demand was invalid and liable to be struck down, and the petitioner was granted writ relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty can be levied only on goods manufactured within the statutory description, and where a process does not transform the product into a new and different article within that description, duty cannot be imposed on the materials used in the process by treating their weight as part of the excisable goods.

---