Statutory appellate remedy bars writ relief in excise matters absent demonstrable prejudice from natural justice breach.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held ordinarily unavailable in fiscal matters where an effective statutory appeal exists under the Central Excise Act, and financial hardship did not justify bypassing that remedy. The Court also held that interference on alleged breach of natural justice requires demonstrated and serious prejudice; mere denial of cross-examination, without showing total violation or material prejudice, was insufficient, especially where factual issues could be examined in appeal. The petitions were therefore not entertained and the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with protection of limitation and directions for expeditious consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the impugned adjudication order called for interference on the ground of violation of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination and alleged prejudice.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where the statute provides a complete appellate mechanism, more so in fiscal matters. The petitions challenged an adjudication order passed under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Court found that questions of fact and law arising from the assessment could be adequately examined by the appellate authority. Financial hardship was held not to be a ground for bypassing the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned adjudication order called for interference on the ground of violation of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination and alleged prejudice.

Analysis: Interference on the ground of breach of natural justice requires a real and demonstrated prejudice, and not a mere assertion of procedural grievance. The Court found that the petitioners had not established total violation of natural justice or shown how denial of cross-examination caused serious prejudice, particularly when the material facts and recoveries were not denied. Such grievance was held to be capable of examination in appeal rather than in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted on the ground of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of by directing the petitioners to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with ancillary directions protecting limitation and requiring expeditious consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal matters, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be invoked where an effective statutory appeal lies, unless there is a patent and total violation of natural justice causing demonstrable prejudice or a comparable jurisdictional defect.

---