Statutory appeal bars writ scrutiny of confiscation-related excise orders and leaves the petitioner to the appellate remedy.

A writ petition challenging a confiscation-related order and refusal to permit removal of plant and machinery was not entertained because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under the Central Excise framework. The Court declined to examine the merits or factual disputes concerning service, delay, or confiscation, holding that the petitioner should pursue the appellate remedy against the original adjudication order. The decision underscores that writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked where the statute provides a direct appeal against the impugned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the confiscation-related order was liable to be entertained despite the availability of a statutory appeal.

Analysis: The petition assailed the order of confiscation and the refusal to permit removal of the plant and machinery. The Court noted that the impugned order arose out of an adjudication under the Central Excise law and that the petitioner had an appellate remedy against the original order. In view of the availability of that statutory remedy, the Court declined to enter into the merits of the dispute or the factual questions relating to service, delay, or confiscation.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal remedy.

---