Statutory appeal remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction against excise liability directions.

A writ petition challenging a departmental direction to obtain a licence and pay duty on dross and skimmings was found premature because Chapter VIA of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 provided an adequate statutory appellate framework. The High Court held that where appeal, second appeal and reference remedies were available and had not been exhausted, Article 226 should not be used to bypass the prescribed procedure. It also noted that the matter was not time-barred and the petitioner could still appear before the departmental authority to contest liability. The petition was therefore not maintainable until statutory remedies were first pursued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the available statutory appeal and other remedies under Chapter VIA of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged a departmental communication calling upon it to take out a licence and pay duty on dross and skimmings. The Court noted that the Act provided a real and efficacious remedy by way of appeal, second appeal, reference to the High Court, and further reference, and that the petitioner had not availed that machinery. It further held that the matter had not become barred by time and that the petitioner could still appear before the departmental authority and contest liability. In such circumstances, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be invoked to bypass the statutory procedure.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be premature and not maintainable, and the petitioner was required to exhaust the statutory remedy first.

---