Alternative statutory remedy bars writ interference where excise valuation disputes and jurisdictional objections remain factual and unresolved.

Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where excise adjudication raised disputed factual issues on undervaluation, price declarations, disclosure of profit element, and alleged suppression supporting invocation of the extended period under the Central Excise Act. The Court noted that the statute provided an effective appeal under Section 35B, and the Section 35F deposit requirement was not treated as onerous because waiver on undue hardship was available. In the absence of patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or another exceptional ground, the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the adjudication orders were maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy, and whether the impugned orders were shown to be without jurisdiction so as to justify interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The writ petitions arose from excise adjudication based on alleged undervaluation, non-disclosure of profit element, and alleged suppression of material facts. The Court examined the Commissioner's findings that the assessee had not filed proper price declarations for the relevant years, had not disclosed profit margins in the assessable value, and that the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had been invoked on the basis of suppression and wilful misstatement. The Court also noted that the controversy involved disputed factual questions, including valuation methodology, the significance of balance-sheets, and the relationship between the manufacturing and marketing entities. On the question of remedy, the Court held that the statute provided an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that the deposit requirement under Section 35F did not make the remedy onerous, particularly because waiver could be considered on undue hardship. The Court found no clear case of patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or other exceptional ground warranting bypass of the appellate forum.

Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction was not to be exercised, and the petitioners were required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an excise adjudication turns on disputed facts and the statute provides an effective appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked unless the impugned action is demonstrably without jurisdiction or otherwise falls within an exceptional ground for interference.

---