Alternate statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction over excise classification disputes despite judicial review power.

Writ petitions challenging an appellate tribunal order were held not maintainable where the grievance concerned classification of goods and consequent duty liability, since the Central Excise Act, 1944 provided an efficacious statutory route under Sections 35G and 35H. The existence of constitutional judicial review did not justify invoking Article 226 when a comprehensive alternate remedy was available, so judicial restraint applied and the petitions were dismissed with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the order of the appellate tribunal were maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of statutory remedies under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The petitioners' grievance related to alleged wrongful classification of goods and consequential levy of duty, a question capable of being pursued through the statutory mechanism under Sections 35G and 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The existence of power of judicial review did not by itself require exercise of writ jurisdiction when an equally efficacious, comprehensive and alternate remedy was available. The Court applied the settled principle of judicial restraint in entertaining writ petitions where the statute provides an adequate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction was not invoked and the petitions were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy under Sections 35G and 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---