Writ jurisdiction and pre-deposit orders: limited appellate remedy and uncorroborated electricity data cannot sustain the demand.

A writ petition may still be maintainable against an order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act even where a statutory appellate remedy exists, because a limited appeal on a substantial question of law is not always an equally efficacious alternative. The note also states that disparity in electricity consumption, without corroborative evidence of excess raw material, clandestine manufacture, or other supporting material, is insufficient to sustain a demand-related order or pre-deposit direction. On that reasoning, the impugned order was treated as unsustainable and the matter was directed for fresh consideration by the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition was maintainable against an order passed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 despite the availability of an appellate remedy; (ii) Whether disparity in electricity consumption, without corroborative evidence, could justify the impugned demand-related order and pre-deposit direction.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition was maintainable against an order passed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The existence of an appellate remedy under the statute does not by itself oust the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellate remedy contemplated for such an order is confined to cases involving a substantial question of law, which is narrower than a general right of appeal. Where the statutory remedy is restricted in this manner, it cannot be treated as an equally efficacious alternative in every case, and judicial review remains available in appropriate cases.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the alternative remedy did not bar interference.

Issue (ii): Whether disparity in electricity consumption, without corroborative evidence, could justify the impugned demand-related order and pre-deposit direction.

Analysis: The impugned order rested substantially on the electricity-consumption report and proceeded on the footing that no other technical material existed, though the record contained contrary expert material. Mere variation in electricity consumption, without supporting evidence of excess raw material, manufacture, clandestine clearance, or other corroborative circumstances, is insufficient to sustain such a conclusion. The Tribunal's observation that no other expert report was available indicated non-application of mind, and the order could not stand on that basis.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed, and the matter required fresh consideration by the Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The writ court interfered with the impugned order, set it aside, and directed reconsideration of the waiver application by the Tribunal on the basis of the materials on record.

Ratio Decidendi: An order refusing waiver of pre-deposit is subject to writ interference where the statutory appellate remedy is not equally efficacious and the decision is founded on a perverse or non-speaking appreciation of evidence, especially when electricity consumption is treated as the sole basis without corroborative material.

---