Specific exemption overrides general excise levy where bagasse-based boards fit the notified nil-rate entry.

A writ petition may still be entertained despite an appellate remedy where the dispute involves discriminatory levy, lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of constitutional rights. The article explains that bagasse-based plain and pre-laminated particle boards were treated as covered by the specific nil-rate exemption in Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., which prevails over the general levy under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. It further notes that departmental authorities should follow Board clarifications for uniform administration and cannot deny exemption to one set of similarly placed manufacturers while granting it to others, as such unequal treatment offends Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether bagasse-based plain and pre-laminated particle boards were entitled to nil rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. or were liable to excise duty under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. (iii) Whether the departmental authorities could take a view contrary to the Board's clarifications and the consistent treatment given to similarly placed manufacturers, having regard to Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The rule of alternative remedy is one of discretion and not an absolute bar. Writ jurisdiction may still be exercised where enforcement of fundamental rights is involved, where the impugned action is without jurisdiction, or where there is discriminatory treatment causing serious commercial handicap. The dispute here was not treated as a mere factual controversy but as one involving unequal levy on the same product across different States, affecting the petitioners' right to carry on business on a non-discriminatory basis.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the petitioners were not required to be relegated to the appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether bagasse-based plain and pre-laminated particle boards were entitled to nil rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. or were liable to excise duty under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E.

Analysis: Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. specifically covered bagasse board at serial No. 82(vi) and granted nil duty, whereas Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. was a general notification applying to all goods under the relevant heading. Where a specific exemption exists for a particular commodity, the assessee cannot be compelled to accept a general concessional levy if the goods answer the specific description. The petitioners' product was accepted as bagasse board, and the departmental materials did not justify denial of the specific exemption merely because the product also used resin or decorative paper in manufacture.

Conclusion: The goods were entitled to nil rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. and were not liable to duty under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E.

Issue (iii): Whether the departmental authorities could take a view contrary to the Board's clarifications and the consistent treatment given to similarly placed manufacturers, having regard to Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Board's clarificatory communications were treated as binding for uniform administration, and the Revenue could not disregard them on the ground that they were not issued in the form of a formal Section 37B order. The Court also accepted the petitioners' grievance that similarly situated manufacturers in other States were being granted the exemption, and that denial of the same benefit in Gujarat amounted to discriminatory treatment in central excise administration. Such unequal treatment was held to be contrary to the constitutional mandate of equality and non-arbitrariness.

Conclusion: The contrary departmental view was unsustainable and the denial of exemption was held to be without jurisdiction and discriminatory.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the impugned demand orders and seizure action were quashed, and the petitioners were held entitled to the nil-rate exemption for bagasse boards.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific exemption notification squarely covers the commodity, and the revenue's contrary view results in discriminatory treatment against similarly placed assessees, the High Court may entertain the writ petition despite an alternative remedy and enforce uniform application of the exemption.

---