Statutory appellate remedy bars writ interference where appeal remains available, with pre-deposit waiver to be sought in appeal.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal was available against the Collector's order and the appeal period had not expired, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The availability of the appellate remedy was treated as sufficient ground to refuse interference, and the petitioner was left to pursue the appeal before the Tribunal. The text also notes that an application for waiver of the pre-deposit requirement could be made in the appeal under the excise law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained when an efficacious statutory appeal was available against the Collector's order, and whether the petitioner could seek waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The challenged order was appealable to the appellate Tribunal within the prescribed period, which had not expired. The availability of this statutory remedy was treated as sufficient reason to decline interference in writ jurisdiction. It was also noted that the petitioner could move an application under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for waiver of the requisite deposit along with the appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed.

---