Statutory appeal before Tribunal can justify of writ merits review where all grounds remain open for consideration.

An efficacious statutory appeal was already pending before CESTAT, and the memorandum of appeal included a challenge to the same orders questioned in the writ petition. The High Court noted that the Tribunal was the appropriate forum to decide the factual and legal contentions, including the validity and correctness of the impugned orders passed under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. It therefore declined to examine the merits in writ jurisdiction and left the petitioner to pursue all grounds before the appellate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained on merits or the petitioner should be relegated to the CESTAT to agitate the validity and correctness of the impugned orders.

Analysis: The challenge arose from orders passed under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 3(4) of the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The Court noted that the petitioner's appeal was already pending before the Tribunal and that the memorandum of appeal included a challenge to the same orders questioned in the writ petition. Since the Tribunal was the last forum for deciding questions of fact and the petitioner could canvass all contentions there, the Court considered it unnecessary to examine the merits in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not examined on merits and the petitioner was permitted to pursue all grounds, including the validity of the impugned orders, before the CESTAT.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is pending before the Tribunal and the petitioner can raise all grounds there, the High Court may decline to go into the merits and leave the parties to the appellate forum.

---