Court dismisses petition challenging Central Excise Act order, citing availability of alternative remedy

The court dismissed the petition challenging an order under the Central Excise Act, citing the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal. The court emphasized that since a previous petition on the same order was dismissed for being not maintainable, a subsequent petition by different parties on different grounds would not be entertained. The court noted that the petitioner's grounds for challenge could be addressed in an appeal and found the current petition not maintainable, ultimately dismissing it without considering the merits of the case.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Central Excise Act

Analysis:
The petition challenged an order under the Central Excise Act, claiming it was contrary to the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 3-A. The petitioner relied on a previous court decision and argued that the statutory authority had acted beyond its power. The court referred to a Supreme Court case emphasizing that an excess of statutory power cannot be validated by acquiescence or estoppel. The order in question was Order-in-Original No. SRT-II/ADJ-19/Dem/2016-17 dated 28.12.2016. A previous writ petition on the same order was dismissed for not being maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal under the Central Excise Act.

The current petition was filed by different parties challenging the same order. The court noted that since a previous petition on the same cause of action was dismissed for being not maintainable, another petition challenging the same order on different grounds would not be entertained. The court distinguished the present case from a previous decision where the constitutional validity of certain provisions was challenged, stating that in this case, no challenge to the constitutional validity of any provision was made. The petitioner had raised various grounds for challenging the order, all of which could be addressed in an appeal. As there was no apparent distinction in the relief sought compared to the earlier petition, the court found the current petition not maintainable and dismissed it without delving into the merits of the case.

---