Court dismisses Writ Petition challenging Central Excise order for failure to exhaust statutory appeal remedy

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging an order under the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the Petitioner failed to utilize the statutory appeal remedy provided under Section 35-B of the Act before resorting to the Writ Petition. The Court emphasized that Article 226 of the Constitution should not bypass statutory procedures unless extraordinary circumstances exist and discouraged the misuse of Writ Petitions for obtaining interim orders. The Petitioner's failure to follow the prescribed appeal mechanism led to the dismissal of the Writ Petition without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Central Excise Act, 1944 without availing statutory appeal remedy.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the Petitioner challenged an order passed by the Respondent under the Central Excise Act, 1944 without availing the statutory appeal remedy provided under Section 35-B of the Act. The Respondent had issued an Order-in-Original determining the liability of the Petitioner. The order explicitly stated the Petitioner's right to appeal within three months to the Appellate Tribunal, with the possibility of condonation for delay with sufficient cause. However, the Petitioner chose to file a Writ Petition directly challenging the order without utilizing the statutory appeal mechanism.

The Court highlighted the legal principle that Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to bypass statutory procedures unless extraordinary circumstances exist, such as questioning the vires of the statute or when public justice demands it. The Court cited the Assistant Collector of Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Limited case to emphasize that statutory remedies should not be circumvented, especially in revenue-related matters where alternative remedies are available. The Court expressed concern over the misuse of Article 226 petitions solely for obtaining interim orders and prolonging proceedings, stating that such practices need to be discouraged.

Ultimately, the Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case due to the Petitioner's failure to utilize the statutory appeal mechanism before resorting to the Writ Petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as it could not be entertained, and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions without imposing any costs.

---