Statutory remedy under Section 35G governed maintainability, and the appeals were dismissed as procedurally improper.

The appeals were treated as not maintainable because the proper procedural route was a reference under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises Act. The Court accepted the objection that the appellants should have pursued that statutory remedy instead of the appeals. It also indicated that the assessee could invoke Section 35G and, if limitation became an issue, seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in accordance with law. The appeals were therefore dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals were maintainable and whether the appellants were required to pursue the remedy under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises Act instead.

Analysis: The objection that the matter should have been taken by way of reference under Section 35G(1) was accepted by the appellant. The Court therefore treated the appeals as not the proper procedural route. It also indicated that the assessee could avail the statutory remedy under Section 35G and, on limitation, seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed.

---