Statutory appellate remedy limits writ review where jurisdictional objections and factual disputes can be examined in appeal.

An effective statutory appellate remedy will ordinarily bar a writ court from conducting a roving inquiry into a demand, especially where the appeal can examine jurisdictional objections and alleged natural justice violations. Disputed factual and evidentiary issues are better left to the original and appellate authorities rather than being decided under Article 226. The Court also noted the contention that no time limit was fixed under Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996, and considered it appropriate that such questions be examined in appeal. The writ order relegating the appellant to the statutory remedy was upheld and the writ appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeal could be entertained on the merits of the demand and jurisdictional objections, or whether the appellant had to be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a writ petition challenging the original order of adjudication. The impugned writ order had declined to examine the merits and required exhaustion of the statutory remedy. The Court reiterated that when an effective appellate remedy is available, particularly one competent to examine jurisdictional objections and violations of natural justice, the High Court should ordinarily not undertake a roving inquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Disputed questions of fact and evidentiary issues are better addressed by the original and appellate authorities. The Court also noted that the respondent contended that no time limit was fixed under Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996, and found it appropriate that all such questions be examined in appeal.

Conclusion: The writ order relegating the appellant to the statutory appeal was upheld, and the writ appeal was dismissed.

---