2002 (2) TMI 112 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses writ petitions, directs appeal under Section 35L for statutory remedy

The Court held that writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 were not maintainable due to the existence of a statutory remedy under Section 35L of the ... Reference to High Court - Exemption - Rate of duty Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Jurisdiction of the CEGAT to deal with questions not raised in the appeal filed by the assessee.3. Availability and adequacy of statutory remedy u/s 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.Summary:Issue 1: Maintainability of the writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of IndiaThe respondent/assessee raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, arguing that an appeal to the Supreme Court is provided u/s 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court held that the existence of a statutory remedy under Section 35L is a bar for entertaining writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227, as the issues involved pertain to the rate of duty and valuation, which are within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Court referenced multiple judgments, including Colour Chem Ltd. v. Union of India and Navin Chemicals Mfg. and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, to support this position.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the CEGAT to deal with questions not raised in the appeal filed by the assesseeThe petitioners contended that CEGAT acted without jurisdiction by addressing questions not raised in the appeal. The Court did not find merit in this argument, stating that the CEGAT had recorded reasons in support of its conclusions and that factual aspects highlighted in the order could only be appropriately reviewed by the appellate authority under Section 35L.Issue 3: Availability and adequacy of statutory remedy u/s 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944The Court emphasized that the statutory remedy u/s 35L of the Act is available and adequate for the petitioners to address their grievances. It held that the question of whether the respondent-assessee is covered by the exemption notification relates directly to the rate of duty, which falls within the scope of Section 35L. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Navin Chemicals Mfg. and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs to underline that disputes about classification and exemption notifications relate directly to the rate of duty.Conclusion:The Court dismissed both writ petitions, sustaining the preliminary objection raised by the respondent/assessee. It directed the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court u/s 35L of the Act, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.