Alternative statutory remedy barred writ review where factual and evidentiary disputes were better left to the appellate authority.

A writ petition challenging factual findings and evidentiary objections was not entertained because an effective statutory appeal was available under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The High Court held that issues such as inspection of relied-upon papers, alleged prejudice from non-production of the branch manager for cross-examination, and appreciation of evidence were matters for the appellate authority, which could examine the record and sift the evidence in detail. It declined to reappraise evidence in Article 226 jurisdiction and rejected the petition on the ground of alternative statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The challenge raised factual objections relating to inspection of relied-upon papers, alleged prejudice from non-production of the branch manager for cross-examination, and appreciation of evidence. These matters were held to be suitable for examination by the appellate authority, which could sift the evidence and consider the record in detail. The Court declined to undertake reappraisal of evidence in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where an effective statutory appeal was available.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal.

---