Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review where excise adjudication issues can be examined by appellate authorities.

A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable where the statute provided a complete and efficacious appellate remedy against the Collector's adjudication order. The Court held that disputes on clandestine removal and on the correct adjudicating authority could be examined by the statutory authorities and the Tribunal, so a jurisdictional objection did not justify bypassing the appeal process. The deposit requirement under the appellate provision did not make the remedy ineffective because the Tribunal could dispense with deposit in appropriate cases. The challenge to the order was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against the Collector's adjudication order in view of the statutory appeal remedy, and whether the existence of a jurisdictional objection justified bypassing that remedy.

Analysis: The challenge arose from a notice and adjudication under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Court held that the dispute, including the allegation of clandestine removal and the question of the correct adjudicating authority, was one that could be examined by the statutory authorities and the Tribunal. The availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, coupled with the petitioner having already availed the appellate process, weighed against entertaining a writ petition. The Court also rejected the contention that the deposit requirement under Section 35F made the appellate remedy ineffective, since the Tribunal had discretion to dispense with deposit in appropriate cases.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable, and the challenge to the Collector's order was rejected in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides a complete and efficacious appellate machinery, a writ petition under Article 226 will ordinarily not be entertained to bypass that remedy, even when jurisdictional objections are raised, unless exceptional circumstances justify interference.

---