2000 (9) TMI 85 - HC - Central Excise

Court upholds statutory remedies over writ jurisdiction for excise brand name dispute

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the brand name on excisable ... Maintainability of writ petition - alternative statutory remedy - appeal under Section 35L - jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226/227 - scope of L. Chandra Kumar - short-circuiting statutory procedureMaintainability of writ petition - appeal under Section 35L - scope of L. Chandra Kumar - short-circuiting statutory procedure - Writ petition under Article 226/227 is not maintainable where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 35L is available; L. Chandra Kumar does not render that statutory remedy redundant or permit bypassing it. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that L. Chandra Kumar was concerned with the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over Tribunals constituted under Articles 323/323A and did not decide that a statutory appeal to the Supreme Court provided by a statute must be bypassed by invoking writ jurisdiction. Observations in L. Chandra Kumar about moving to High Court instead of direct appeal to the Supreme Court were contextual to that constitutional scheme and are not a licence to ignore specific appellate remedies prescribed by statute. Reliance placed on decisions treating Article 226 as not intended to short-circuit statutory procedures was affirmed; where Parliament has provided an alternative remedy which is efficacious, extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be exercised. The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that Section 35L was rendered redundant by L. Chandra Kumar was rejected as unsound; other cited precedents (including Chanan Singh and authorities declining to permit bypass of statutory remedy) support the conclusion that the petitioner must avail the remedy under Section 35L instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable; petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal under Section 35L.Final Conclusion: The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it on the ground that an efficacious statutory remedy by way of appeal under Section 35L is available and L. Chandra Kumar does not permit bypassing that remedy. Issues:Challenge to order by Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) regarding brand name on excisable goods and eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 1/93; Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226/227 despite statutory remedy under Section 35L of the Act.Issue 1: Challenge to CEGAT's orderThe petitioner contested the order by CEGAT questioning the fixing of another person's brand name on excisable goods, making it ineligible for Notification No. 1/93 benefit. Show cause notice was issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944, alleging the use of a registered brand name on goods manufactured by the petitioner. The petitioner manufactured cement under the brand name of DCC, which belonged to another entity, leading to the imposition of Central Excise Duty and penalty by the Collector. CEGAT upheld the duty and penalty but allowed Modvat credit if duty paying documents were produced within two months.Issue 2: Maintainability of writ petitionThe petitioner argued the writ petition's maintainability under Article 226/227 despite the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 35L of the Act. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the statutory remedy. The petitioner emphasized the importance of the questions involved and the absence of factual disputes, relying on legal precedents like L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI and Neo Sacks Limited v. CEGAT. The respondent, however, referred to Chanan Singh and Sons v. Collector of Central Excise, advocating against entertaining a writ petition when a statutory remedy exists.Analysis:The judgment delves into the interpretation of statutory remedies and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 in light of specific legal precedents. The court scrutinized the petitioner's reliance on L. Chandra Kumar's case and the contention that the statutory remedy under Section 35L did not bar the writ petition. The court disagreed with the observations that rendered the statutory remedy redundant, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory procedures before resorting to Article 226/227. Legal principles from various cases like Asstt. Collector C.E. v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes were invoked to underscore the importance of following statutory remedies and discouraging the misuse of writ jurisdiction for interim orders. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, aligning with previous decisions highlighting the exclusivity of statutory remedies provided under the Act.