Statutory revision remains competent despite a further appellate remedy, and writ interference was not warranted.

The revisional power under Section 35EE(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was construed on its plain language as unobstructed by the mere availability of a further appeal to the Tribunal. The Court found no legal basis to hold that an appellate remedy excluded statutory revision, and therefore treated the Central Government's revision as competent. It also found no error in the revisional order that would justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, so writ relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Government could exercise revisional power under Section 35EE(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 merely because the appellate order was appealable to the Tribunal, and whether the impugned revisional order called for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The provision conferring revisional power was held to be clear and unambiguous. On its plain language, there was nothing to indicate that the Central Government was barred from invoking revision only because a further appeal lay against the appellate order. No legal authority or principle was shown to support the contention that the availability of an appellate remedy excluded revision under the statute. The Court also found no error in the revisional order warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The revision under Section 35EE(4) was held competent despite the existence of a further appellate remedy, and no interference under Article 226 was justified.

---