Court Denies Duty Exemption Claim, Emphasizes Timely Appeals

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to excise duty exemption for belting woven as such under Notification No. 70/69. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have appealed the earlier decision in 1976 that denied the exemption, rather than waiting until 1981 to raise the issue again. The court held that the petitioner's failure to exhaust the available appeal process under the Central Excises and Salts Act 1944 precluded relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court directed each party to bear their own costs and ordered the refund of the security deposit to the petitioner after verification.

---

---

Issues:
- Interpretation of excise duty exemption for belting woven as such under Notification No. 70/69.
- Availability of alternative remedy through appeal under the Central Excises and Salts Act 1944.
- Consideration of whether invoking extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is justified.

Interpretation of Excise Duty Exemption:
The petitioner, a company manufacturing filter cloth and belting, claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 70/69 for belting woven as such. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector rejected this claim, leading to the petitioner continuing to pay excise duty. In 1981, the petitioner again sought exemption, but the Assistant Collector refused based on the previous decision. The court noted that the Appellate Collector had already determined in 1976 that the fabrics produced by the petitioner were not exempt under the notification. The court emphasized that if the petitioner believed the earlier decision was incorrect, it should have appealed then. As the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy available through appeal, the court found no merit in the petition's claim for exemption.

Availability of Alternative Remedy:
The court acknowledged that the Assistant Collector's order was appealable under the Act. The petitioner argued that appealing the order would be futile since the Appellate Collector had already decided on the matter. However, the court held that the petitioner's failure to appeal the earlier decision in 1976 did not justify bypassing the statutory remedy. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have challenged the initial decision if it believed it to be erroneous, rather than waiting until 1981 to raise the issue again. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the failure to exhaust the available appeal process.

Invoking Extraordinary Powers under Article 226:
In considering the petitioner's request for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court found that the petitioner had acquiesced to the Appellate Collector's decision in 1976 by continuing to pay excise duty. The court deemed the question of whether the fabrics produced qualified for exemption as a disputed question of fact. Consequently, the court concluded that since the petitioner had not pursued the appeal remedy earlier, invoking the court's extraordinary powers was unwarranted. The court dismissed the petition, directing each party to bear their own costs and ordering the refund of the security deposit to the petitioner after verification.

---