Statutory appellate remedy bars writ challenge to excise classification orders unless exceptional grounds exist.

The writ challenge to excise and customs reclassification orders was held not maintainable because the statute provided an effective appellate hierarchy on facts and law. The Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised where an alternative statutory remedy exists, unless there is lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or other exceptional grounds. As the petitioners could pursue the prescribed appeals, direct recourse under Article 226 was declined and the writ petitions were dismissed, leaving the parties to the statutory appellate process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the excise and customs reclassification orders were maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The impugned orders arose in adjudication under the excise law and the statute provided a full appellate hierarchy on facts and law. The Court followed the binding principle that where an effective alternative remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised, absent lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or other exceptional grounds. As the petitioners could pursue appeals before the appropriate appellate authorities, the writ petitions did not warrant interference on merits.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 226 was not maintainable and the writ petitions were dismissed, leaving the petitioners to avail the statutory appeals.

Final Conclusion: The decision reaffirms that disputes on excise classification and duty adjudication should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism rather than by direct writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Existence of an effective statutory appeal on facts and law ordinarily bars recourse to writ jurisdiction against adjudication orders under the excise law.

---