Statutory appellate remedy bars writ jurisdiction where an appeal to the Tribunal remains available and effective.

An order appealable to the Tribunal under the Central Excise Act could not be challenged by writ when an efficacious statutory remedy existed. The High Court held that the petitioner should have pursued the appellate route, including a request for reconsideration or reference to a Larger Bench if necessary. A Board circular did not bind the appellate authority so as to prevent the Tribunal from taking its own view, and a request to declare another Tribunal decision incorrect was misconceived. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the impugned circular or the Tribunal's view in another case could justify bypassing the appellate remedy.

Analysis: The order under challenge was appealable to the Tribunal under the statute. The existence of an appellate remedy could not be ignored merely because the Tribunal had taken a similar view in another matter. The availability of a statutory appeal remained the proper course, and the petitioner could have sought reconsideration by the Tribunal, including reference to a Larger Bench if necessary. The circular issued by the Board was not binding on the appellate authority and could not prevent the Tribunal from taking its own view. The prayer to declare another Tribunal decision incorrect was also found to be misconceived.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the presence of an efficacious statutory remedy and was dismissed.

---