Alternate remedy rule bars writ challenge to excise penalty order where factual reappreciation and pre-deposit requirements must be addressed in appeal.

Writ petitions challenging an order-in-original were held not maintainable where a statutory appeal was available under the Central Excise Act with a 7.5% pre-deposit requirement. The Court held that the challenge, which required reappreciation of facts and evidence on duty quantification and penalty, could not be examined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. It found that none of the recognised exceptions to the alternate remedy rule applied: there was no natural justice breach, no vires challenge, and no apparent lack of jurisdiction. The pre-deposit condition was not treated as so onerous as to justify bypassing the appellate remedy, and the petitioners were relegated to appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the order-in-original were maintainable despite the availability of a statutory appeal under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the requirement of pre-deposit of 7.5% of the penalty.

Analysis: The petitions assailed the adjudication order mainly on the ground that the penalty imposed on the petitioners was excessive and beyond the permissible limit, but the Court found that accepting that contention would require a reappreciation of facts and evidence, including the quantification of duty and the basis of the penalty. Such a factual enquiry was held to be outside the proper scope of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India when a statutory appellate remedy was available. The Court further held that none of the recognised exceptions to the alternate remedy rule were attracted, as there was no violation of natural justice, no challenge to vires, and no apparent want of jurisdiction. The mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% was held not to be so onerous as to justify bypassing the appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory appeal remedy; interference with the impugned order was declined.

---