High Court dismisses writ petition challenging excise duty assessment order & remission application, emphasizing statutory remedies

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an excise duty assessment order and rejection of a remission application. The Court held that the petitioner's failure to timely avail statutory remedies and the attempt to challenge independent causes of action in a single petition amounted to a misuse of legal process. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory remedies within limitation periods, the Court deemed the petition without merit and dismissed it, stating that factual issues should be addressed by the adjudicating authority, not under constitutional jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order dated 29.11.2018 under Section 11-A of Central Excise Act, rejection of application for remission of excise duty, maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company, challenged the impugned order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming central excise duty amounting to Rs. 35,07,936. The petitioner failed to file an appeal against this order within the prescribed limitation period. Additionally, the petitioner filed an application for remission of excise duty on finished goods destroyed in a fire accident in 2016, much beyond the six-month limitation period, which was later rejected on 23.9.2021.

The respondents filed an application seeking dismissal of the writ petition on various grounds, including the availability of appeal under Section 35(1) of the Excise Act against the assessment order dated 29.11.2018. The respondents argued that the High Court cannot issue a writ inconsistent with the legislative intent and beyond the period of limitation, citing a judgment of the Supreme Court.

The High Court noted that the petitioner failed to explain the delay in availing statutory remedies against the impugned actions within the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner attempted to challenge both the order dated 29.11.2018 and the rejection of the remission application dated 23.9.2021 in the same petition, although they give rise to independent causes of action. The Court held that challenging the remission order does not entitle the petitioner to challenge the excise duty assessment order under Article 226. The Court deemed this approach as a misuse of legal process, disentitling the petitioner from invoking equitable jurisdiction under Article 226.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the High Court found the writ petition without merit and dismissed it. The Court emphasized that the contentions raised by the petitioner pertain to factual issues that should be addressed by the adjudicating authority, not under extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory remedies within the prescribed limitation periods and the limitations of challenging different causes of action in a single petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---