Writ jurisdiction and natural justice apply where excise duty is demanded without hearing over warehoused goods lost by theft.

A revisional remedy under the excise law does not, by itself, exclude writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is without jurisdiction, void ab initio, or breaches natural justice. Rule 147 permits remission of duty on warehoused goods lost or destroyed by unavoidable accident, and theft is treated as falling within loss for that purpose; the exercise of discretion under that rule requires consideration of relevant materials and an enquiry. Before duty is demanded under Rule 160 for alleged improper removal, the affected party should be given an opportunity to explain, as the demand has prejudicial consequences.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory remedy of revision, and whether duty could be demanded under Rule 160 without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard when remission was sought under Rule 147 for loss of warehoused goods by theft.

Analysis: The availability of a revisional remedy under the excise law did not, by itself, bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action was taken without jurisdiction, was void ab initio, or violated natural justice. Rule 147 empowered the Collector to remit duty on warehoused goods lost or destroyed by unavoidable accident, and theft was treated as falling within the concept of loss for that purpose. Although Rule 147 did not expressly provide for an enquiry, the exercise of discretion under it necessarily required consideration of relevant materials and an enquiry. Before proceeding under Rule 160 to demand duty for alleged improper removal, the authority was expected to afford the affected party an opportunity to explain, because the decision would prejudicially affect it.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, the demand and rejection were vitiated by violation of natural justice, and the petitioner succeeded.

---