Court Dismisses Writ Application, Emphasizes Statutory Remedies

The court dismissed the writ application on grounds of maintainability, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court emphasized the importance of following statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction, citing the need to meet exceptions such as violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenges to legislation for writs to be entertained.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of certificates filed by the petitioner in compliance with Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise.
2. Declaration of no excise duty payable on the Food Items manufactured by the petitioner.
3. Legality of jurisdiction assumed by Respondent No.3 to issue the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and subsequent proceedings.
4. Quashing of the letter denying the extension of time for submission of exemption certificates.
5. Maintainability of the writ application due to alleged violation of principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Acceptance of Certificates Filed by the Petitioner:
The petitioner sought a direction for Respondent No.1 to accept the certificates filed with the application dated 07.06.2021 in compliance with Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise dated 17.03.2012. The petitioner argued that the certificates were delayed due to the State Government issuing them only after final payment of bills. The court noted that the petitioner formally requested an extension of time for submission of the certificates only after the Order-in-Original dated 12.04.2021 was passed, rendering the request untimely.

2. Declaration of No Excise Duty Payable:
The petitioner claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise, asserting that all pre-requisites were fulfilled. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to submit the required certificates within the prescribed 5 months, as noted in the audit report. The court did not delve into the merits of this claim due to the procedural focus on maintainability.

3. Legality of Jurisdiction Assumed by Respondent No.3:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of Respondent No.3 to issue the SCN dated 24.07.2019, arguing that the audit and subsequent proceedings were conducted without proper authority and violated principles of natural justice. The court observed that the petitioner was given opportunities for personal hearings and that the adjudicating authority followed due process, thereby rejecting the claim of jurisdictional overreach.

4. Quashing of the Letter Denying Extension of Time:
The petitioner sought to quash the letter dated 22.06.2021, which denied the request for an extension of time to submit exemption certificates. The court noted that the request for extension was made after the Order-in-Original was passed, and there was no provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944, or its circulars/notifications to grant such an extension post-adjudication by a higher authority.

5. Maintainability of the Writ Application:
The petitioner argued that the writ application was maintainable due to a gross violation of natural justice. The court, however, found that the principles of natural justice were duly followed, as the petitioner was given multiple opportunities for personal hearings. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the court emphasized that exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy include violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenges to the vires of legislation. Since none of these exceptions were met, the court dismissed the writ application on the grounds of maintainability, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ application on the ground of maintainability, providing the petitioner with the liberty to raise all grounds, including substantial compliance, before the appellate authority. The court reiterated the importance of following statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.

---