Dismissal of Challenge to Order-In-Original: Emphasis on Appeal Remedy Under Central Excise Act

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Order-In-Original against M/s. Roma Industries. The court emphasized the availability of an appeal remedy under the Central Excise Act, stating that unless the order was without jurisdiction or violated natural justice, it would not intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court clarified that the dismissal was due to the existence of an alternative statutory remedy and not based on the merits of the original order. The petitioners were directed to pursue appropriate proceedings before the relevant authority.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Order-In-Original dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax against M/s. Roma Industries. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Liability of petitioners to pay dues of M/s. Roma Industries due to an undertaking given by Mr. Vikesh Mandviwala. Availability of alternative remedy under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Order-In-Original
The petition challenged the Order-In-Original dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner against M/s. Roma Industries. The petitioners argued that the recovery of dues assessed under the order might be sought from them, even though the order was against M/s. Roma Industries. The petitioners contended that the matter required consideration as per the no due certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner in 2013. However, the High Court noted that an appeal lies to the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Central Excise Act, 1944, against orders passed by the adjudicating authority. The court stated that unless the order is without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or passed in violation of natural justice, it would not ordinarily exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since none of these circumstances were established, the court found no grounds for intervention.

Issue 2: Liability of Petitioners
The petitioners expressed apprehension that they might be held liable to pay the dues of M/s. Roma Industries due to an undertaking given by Mr. Vikesh Mandviwala, who did not have the authority to act on their behalf. The court emphasized that if the petitioners believed they were wrongly implicated, the appropriate remedy was to appeal under the Central Excise Act. Absent any jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice in the impugned Order-In-Original, the court held that the question of invoking Article 226 of the Constitution did not arise. The court clarified that the petition was dismissed due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and not on the merits of the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The High Court summarily dismissed the petition, directing the petitioners to pursue appropriate proceedings before the relevant authority. The court highlighted that it had not examined the merits of the Order-In-Original and that if the petitioners availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal, it would be considered on its merits in accordance with the law.

---