Statutory appellate remedy bars writ intervention when the dispute over Modvat credit can be raised before the appellate forum.

Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should ordinarily not be used to bypass that remedy. In a challenge to disallowance of Modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the High Court noted that the petitioner could raise its legal contentions, including cited authorities, before the appellate forum. The writ petition was therefore not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal, leaving the credit dispute for appellate consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 was maintainable when an efficacious statutory appeal was available against the order disallowing Modvat credit.

Analysis: The petition challenged disallowance of Modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but an appeal lay against the impugned order. The settled principle applied was that where a special statutory forum exists for redressal of the grievance, the High Court should normally not entertain a petition under Article 226/227. The Court also noted that the petitioner could urge the cited decisions before the appellate authority, which would consider them while deciding the appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: The decision leaves the merits of Modvat credit open for consideration by the appellate authority and confines the petitioner to the alternative statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appellate remedy is available, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass that remedy.

---