High Court dismisses petition against excise duty refund rejection, emphasizes statutory procedures over writ jurisdiction.

The High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills challenging the Asstt. Collector's rejection of their excise duty refund application. The Court advised pursuing the appeal process under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, instead of resorting to writ jurisdiction. Emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures, the Court directed the Collector to decide on the appeal within five months. The petition was dismissed, highlighting the importance of utilizing the alternative remedy provided by the Act and avoiding bypassing statutory procedures.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petition for quashing order of Asstt. Collector rejecting refund of excise duty.
2. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Consideration of alternative remedy under the Act.
4. Application of Supreme Court decisions on statutory procedures and alternative remedies.

Analysis:
The High Court of Allahabad heard a petition filed by M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills challenging the order of the Asstt. Collector rejecting their application for refund of excise duty. The petitioner argued that the Asstt. Collector's decision was incorrect, citing Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Specifically, the petitioner relied on clause (e) of sub-section 5 of Section 11B to assert that the claim for refund could not be time-barred due to provisional assessment. The Court noted the Asstt. Collector's reasons for deeming the claim time-barred but did not conclusively rule on the limitation issue, suggesting the petitioner pursue an appeal as provided by the statute.

Regarding the necessity of examining the Asstt. Collector's points on limitation, the Court opined that if clause (e) of sub-section 5 of Section 11B applied, the Asstt. Collector's view would be erroneous. The Court emphasized the availability of an appeal under the statute and advised the petitioner to exercise that right. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Court highlighted that Art. 226 should not bypass statutory procedures unless necessary due to extraordinary circumstances. The Court found no justification to allow the petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy provided by the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Acknowledging the petitioner's argument for expeditious resolution, the Court directed the Collector to decide the petitioner's appeal within five months once filed. The Court summarily dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy under the Act and the importance of following statutory procedures.

---