Alternative remedy and rewarehousing compliance: writ relief maintained and excise duty demand under Rule 156-B rejected.

Availability of an appellate remedy did not bar Article 226 relief where coercive action was underway and the remedy was treated as onerous rather than an adequate substitute, so the writ petition was maintainable. On the excise issue, duty could not be demanded under Rule 156-B because the consignor's obligation to present the endorsed triplicate application depended on prior rewarehousing steps by the consignee; when the goods never reached the destination warehouse and the consignee did not return the endorsed form, compliance became impossible. The demand was set aside and recovery was restrained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. (ii) Whether duty could be demanded from the petitioner under Rule 156-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the facts of the removal and non-rewarehousing of the tobacco.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The existence of an appellate remedy did not bar recourse to Article 226 where coercive steps were being taken and the petitioner complained of interference with its right to carry on trade. The alternative remedy was treated as onerous and burdensome rather than an adequate substitute for writ relief.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy failed and the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether duty could be demanded from the petitioner under Rule 156-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the facts of the removal and non-rewarehousing of the tobacco.

Analysis: Rule 153 required a bond for due arrival and rewarehousing, but the bond in the case stood with the consignee and remained operative until the goods were produced at the destination warehouse or otherwise accounted for. Rule 156-A made the consignor's duty to present the endorsed triplicate application conditional upon prior compliance by the consignee with the rewarehousing procedure. Since the goods never reached the destination warehouse and the consignee did not return the endorsed triplicate, the petitioner could not comply with Rule 156-A(4). In that situation, Rule 156-B, which penalised failure to present the triplicate application, was not attracted.

Conclusion: No duty was recoverable from the petitioner under Rule 156-B, and no action could be taken against it on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The demand of excise duty against the petitioner was set aside and the respondents were restrained from recovering any duty in respect of the tobacco in dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where compliance with a rewarehousing obligation depends on prior statutory acts by the consignee, the consignor cannot be penalised or made liable for duty for failure to perform a step that became impossible due to non-compliance by the consignee.

---