Excise exemption claim and unused statutory appeal remedy barred writ interference with demand and recovery action.

The Madras HC noted that the assessee failed to substantiate the claimed excise exemption because the notification and the undertaking said to have been filed were not produced, so the plea that excise duty was not payable was rejected. It also held that the impugned demand orders had attained finality, no appeals had been filed against them, and an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available against the notice. On that basis, the Court found no reason to interfere under writ jurisdiction with the assessment, interest, penalty, and recovery steps, and the recovery action was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner established entitlement to exemption under the excise notification and whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the available statutory appeal remedy.

Analysis: The claimed exemption was not proved by producing the notification or the undertaking said to have been filed, and the Court therefore declined to accept the plea that excise duty was not payable. The impugned demand orders had attained finality, no appeals had been filed against them, and the petitioner had an efficacious appellate remedy against the impugned notice. In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the assessment, interest, penalty, and recovery steps.

Conclusion: The exemption plea failed, and the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the unavailed alternate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The demand and recovery action were left undisturbed, and the revenue authorities were permitted to proceed with recovery of the balance amount.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition will not ordinarily be entertained to challenge excise recovery when the assessee fails to substantiate the exemption claim and has an efficacious statutory appellate remedy that has not been pursued.

---