Statutory remedy under excise law bars writ bypass, while refund claim must be decided on merits

Where an effective statutory remedy exists under the Central Excise Act, the writ court should not ordinarily bypass the statutory adjudicatory process, and the impugned writ order was set aside. The refund claim under Section 11B was directed to be considered by the competent excise authority on merits, with limitation and pre-deposit objections not to defeat consideration at the remanded stage. The dispute was therefore sent back for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition ought to have been entertained despite the availability of statutory remedies under the Central Excise Act; (ii) whether the refund claim under Section 11B should be decided on merits notwithstanding the plea of limitation and pre-deposit.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition ought to have been entertained despite the availability of statutory remedies under the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The petitioning company approached the writ court without first pursuing the statutory forums provided under the excise law. In matters involving public revenue, the statutory machinery was viewed as the proper forum for examining the claim and resolving the dispute. The writ direction was also found to be inconsistent in simultaneously recognising entitlement to refund and subjecting it to Section 11B.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit to be sustained and the writ court's order was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): whether the refund claim under Section 11B should be decided on merits notwithstanding the plea of limitation and pre-deposit.

Analysis: Since the refund claim had been raised under Section 11B, the proper course was for the competent excise authority to consider and dispose of it on merits. The appellate court directed that limitation and pre-deposit requirements should not obstruct such consideration in the remanded proceedings.

Conclusion: The refund claim was revived for adjudication by the Commissioner of Central Excise on merits without being defeated at that stage by limitation or pre-deposit objections.

Final Conclusion: The impugned writ order was set aside and the refund dispute was sent back to the departmental authority for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory remedy exists under the excise law, the writ court should not ordinarily be used to bypass the statutory adjudicatory process, and a refund claim must be determined by the competent authority on merits in the prescribed forum.

---