Writ jurisdiction cannot bypass statutory appellate remedies where delay and procedural reliefs are available under the excise scheme.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to bypass a complete statutory appellate scheme under the Central Excise Act, particularly where the enactment provides remedies for delay and related procedural reliefs. A challenge to a central excise demand arising from disallowance of Modvat credit was therefore not entertained in writ proceedings because the petitioners had not exhausted the available appellate remedies before the Commissioner or the Tribunal. The writ petition was held not maintainable for the relief sought and the parties were left to pursue the statutory mechanism.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable for seeking dispensation of pre-deposit and condonation of delay when the statutory remedies under the Central Excise Act were not exhausted.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against a central excise demand arising out of disallowance of Modvat credit. The petitioners had not pursued the appellate remedies before the Commissioner or the Tribunal within the prescribed time and instead invoked writ jurisdiction for dispensation of pre-deposit and condonation of delay. The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must operate consistently with the statutory scheme and should not be used to bypass remedies specifically provided by the enactment. The existence of a remedy before the statutory authorities, including the power to consider delay and related reliefs, weighed against direct intervention under writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for the relief sought and was dismissed; the petitioners were left to pursue the statutory remedies available under the Central Excise Act.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction and left the dispute to be pursued through the prescribed statutory appellate mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to circumvent a complete statutory appellate framework, especially where the statute provides remedies for delay and related procedural reliefs.

---