Alternative Remedy and Excise Valuation: writ relief was allowed, and reassessment orders were quashed for non-consideration of objections.

Alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ interference where the impugned reassessment orders disclosed a patent infirmity, and the High Court exercised writ jurisdiction despite the Revenue's objection. Reassessment of assessable value for sulphuric acid and oleum was quashed because the authority relied mainly on higher values of the same goods at another factory without meeting the assessee's specific objections or showing that all relevant valuation factors had been considered; the valuation issues were therefore remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law, including proper consideration of the applicable valuation rule for oleum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitions should be declined on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedies. (ii) Whether the reassessment of assessable value for sulphuric acid and oleum could be sustained when the order did not meet the assessee's objections and, in the case of oleum, whether Rule 6(b)(i) or Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 applied.

Issue (i): Whether the petitions should be declined on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedies.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy was treated as a rule of discretion and not as an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitions had already been admitted, and the impugned orders disclosed a patent infirmity on merits. In these circumstances, refusal to interfere merely on the ground of alternative remedy was not warranted.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected against the Revenue and the Court exercised writ jurisdiction in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment of assessable value for sulphuric acid and oleum could be sustained when the order did not meet the assessee's objections and, in the case of oleum, whether Rule 6(b)(i) or Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 applied.

Analysis: The reassessment was founded mainly on the higher assessable value of the same goods at another factory, without meeting the specific objections raised by the assessee. A reassessment order could not stand on that basis alone. As to oleum, the applicability of Rule 6(b)(i) or Rule 6(b)(ii) depended on the facts and material relevant to valuation, and the order did not show that all relevant factors had been considered. The matter therefore required fresh decision in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders were unsustainable and were quashed; the matters were directed to be decided afresh in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Court set aside the impugned reassessment orders, declined to non-suit the assessee on the ground of alternate remedy, and required the excise authority to reconsider the valuation issues afresh after notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ interference where the impugned order suffers from a patent error, and a valuation reassessment must be supported by consideration of the assessee's specific objections and all relevant factors bearing on the applicable valuation rule.

---