Alternative remedy not an absolute bar, and factual findings based on inspection and admission were upheld against writ challenge.

Availability of an alternative remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction because it is only a rule of discretion, and the petition's long pendency made summary rejection inappropriate; the preliminary objection was overruled. On the merits, the Tribunal's finding that the goods were cotton furnishing fabrics manufactured and cleared without duty was sustained because it rested on inspection, contemporaneous admission, and the absence of any timely dispute, so there was no need for chemical examination and no patent error or perversity was shown. The writ petition was therefore maintainable, but the substantive challenge to the excise demand and penalty reduction failed, leaving the Tribunal's order substantially undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition should be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy; (ii) Whether the Tribunal's finding that the goods were cotton furnishing fabrics manufactured and cleared without duty, without sending samples for chemical examination, suffered from patent error of law or perversity.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: Availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is a rule of discretion, and in the facts of the case the petition had remained pending for nearly nine years. In those circumstances, summary rejection merely on the ground of another available remedy was not appropriate.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection on maintainability was overruled in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's finding that the goods were cotton furnishing fabrics manufactured and cleared without duty, without sending samples for chemical examination, suffered from patent error of law or perversity.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the inspection revealing actual manufacture on power-looms, the contemporaneous statement admitting manufacture and removal of cotton furnishing fabrics without licence or duty, and the absence of any timely dispute by the petitioner before release of the goods. On that material, the Court held that there was no necessity to send samples for expert examination and that the factual conclusions recorded by the Tribunal were justified.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's findings failed and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be maintainable, but the substantive challenge to the excise demand and penalty reduction failed, leaving the Tribunal's order substantially undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, and concurrent factual findings based on inspection, contemporaneous admission, and absence of timely dispute will not be interfered with absent patent error or perversity.

---