Writ jurisdiction barred by alternate statutory remedy where excise dispute had an available appellate forum.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the Central Excise Act, 1944 provided a statutory appellate remedy against an order alleging short-payment of excise duty. The court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked at the first instance when an effective alternate remedy exists, and the petitioners were required to pursue the statutory appeal before seeking constitutional relief. The petition was dismissed at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable when a statutory appellate remedy was available under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The impugned order related to alleged short-payment of central excise duty and the statute provided an appellate forum. The availability of that remedy barred immediate recourse to writ jurisdiction, and the petitioners were required to pursue the statutory appeal in the first instance.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and was dismissed.

---