Alternative Remedy in excise disputes bars writ review where duty quantification is fact-sensitive, while interim relief may still be varied.

Writ jurisdiction was declined where the excise dispute turned on contested factual questions about duty quantification and the period of liability, and an efficacious statutory appeal remained available. The challenge to the adjudication was therefore not entertained, with all contentions left open for the appellate authority. The earlier interim direction requiring part-payment of the demand was however varied because subsequent adjudication reduced the quantified liability, and the payment arrangement was adjusted on that reduced basis while preserving the assessee's appeal rights.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ court should entertain a challenge to the excise adjudication despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal, where disputed questions existed as to the quantum and period of duty liability; (ii) Whether the earlier interim direction requiring payment of part of the duty demand should be modified in view of the subsequent adjudication reducing the quantified liability.

Issue (i): Whether the writ court should entertain a challenge to the excise adjudication despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal, where disputed questions existed as to the quantum and period of duty liability.

Analysis: The challenge to the adjudication involved factual disputes regarding the amount of duty and the period for which it was payable. The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in the face of an efficacious appellate remedy, and left all contentions open to be urged before the appellate authority. The writ court also refrained from deciding the merits of the legal submissions in view of the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The writ challenge to the adjudication was not entertained and was dismissed, leaving the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier interim direction requiring payment of part of the duty demand should be modified in view of the subsequent adjudication reducing the quantified liability.

Analysis: After the adjudication, the quantified liability stood reduced from the amount earlier assumed, and the Court treated this as a changed circumstance justifying reconsideration of the interim arrangement. The Court held that the earlier direction could be suitably varied while preserving the assessee's right to pursue the appeal, and balanced the interests of both sides by fixing payment on the reduced liability basis.

Conclusion: The earlier interim order was modified and a reduced payment direction was issued in favour of the assessee, subject to its appeal rights.

Final Conclusion: The writ challenge was dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy, but the interim payment arrangement was modified to reflect the reduced adjudicated duty liability and to facilitate the statutory appeal process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available and the dispute turns on contested facts relating to duty quantification, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised; interim fiscal directions may nevertheless be modified when subsequent adjudication alters the basis of the earlier order.

---