Court dismisses writ petitions challenging excise order, emphasizes exhausting legal remedies before seeking relief

The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by a manufacturing company challenging the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai. The court held that the petitioners failed to exhaust the legal remedy of appealing before the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court emphasized the need to pursue available legal remedies before resorting to writ petitions and clarified the process for challenging excise duty demands on imported materials in manufacturing processes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai dated 15-11-92.
2. Classification of products under the new Tariff Act.
3. Demand of excise duty on imported man-made filament yarns.
4. Legal remedy available to the petitioners against the impugned order.
5. Applicability of previous legal judgments on the present case.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, a manufacturing company, sought relief through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution challenging the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai dated 15-11-92. The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, rebutted the allegations and urged the court to dismiss the writ petitions on grounds of merit.

2. The petitioner, a sewing threads manufacturer, sought classification advice from the respondents regarding their products under the new Tariff Act. The dispute arose when the Central Excise authorities demanded excise duty on sewing threads made from duty paid yarns, contending they are different products. The petitioner filed writ petitions to contest this demand.

3. The Collector of Central Excise, Madurai demanded excise duty retrospectively from the petitioner for manufacturing sewing threads from imported man-made filament yarns. The respondents argued that the demand was valid under Section 11A of the Act as duty had not been paid on the imported yarns used in production.

4. The respondents contended that the petitioners should have exhausted the legal remedy of appealing before the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) before invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. As the petitioners did not pursue this legal recourse, the court held that they were not entitled to relief under Article 226.

5. The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that the petitioners had not exhausted the legal remedy available through appeal before CEGAT. The court distinguished previous legal judgments cited by the petitioners, stating that those rulings would be applicable only if the petitioners had pursued the legal remedy through appeal. The court withdrew the interim orders and closed the related petition.

This judgment highlights the importance of exhausting legal remedies available before seeking relief through writ petitions and clarifies the process for challenging excise duty demands on imported materials in manufacturing processes.

---