Excise authorities cannot block clearance of licensed goods due to heir disputes when duty is ready to be paid.

Where manufacture is authorised under a valid licence and the manufacturer is ready to pay duty, excise authorities cannot withhold clearance of the goods merely because of a private dispute among heirs; the power under the statutory scheme extends to levy, licence and removal on payment of duty, not to interdict clearance absent express authority. The writ court may still intervene under Article 226 despite appellate or revisional remedies where the impugned condition is patently without jurisdiction and the facts are undisputed, especially if insisting on alternative remedies would cause avoidable delay and prejudice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the excise authorities, after granting a licence to manufacture tea, could lawfully stop clearance of the manufactured tea stock on the ground of a dispute among heirs. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of appeal or revision under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the excise authorities, after granting a licence to manufacture tea, could lawfully stop clearance of the manufactured tea stock on the ground of a dispute among heirs.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 empowered levy and collection of duty, regulation of manufacture by licence, and clearance of goods on payment of duty. Rule 178(3)(A) was read as directing grant of licence to the person in actual possession where rival heirs applied, while preserving inter se rights of other claimants. The proviso was held not to authorise the excise department to interdict clearance of goods once manufacture had been permitted and the manufacturer was ready to pay duty. Rule 52 contemplated removal of goods on payment of duty, and no other rule conferred power to withhold clearance merely because of a private dispute among heirs.

Conclusion: The restriction on clearance was jurisdiction and illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to clearance of the tea stock on payment of duty under Rule 52.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of appeal or revision under the Act.

Analysis: Although the Act provided appellate and revisional remedies, the facts were undisputed and the impugned condition was found to be plainly unlawful. In such circumstances, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 could be invoked, particularly where insisting on statutory remedies would cause avoidable delay and loss to both the petitioner and public revenue. The argument based on possible departmental liability was also negatived in view of the statutory immunity for acts done in good faith.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the Court declined to relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedies.

Final Conclusion: The impugned condition preventing clearance of the manufactured tea was set aside, and the petitioner's right to clear the goods on payment of duty was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute permits manufacture under a valid licence and provides for clearance on payment of duty, the excise authorities cannot withhold clearance on the basis of a private dispute among heirs unless the Act or rules expressly confer such power; an efficacious statutory alternative remedy does not bar writ relief where the order is patently without jurisdiction.

---