Statutory appellate remedy bars writ jurisdiction where an appeal lies against an excise order.

A writ petition is not maintainable where the impugned order is appealable under the statutory central excise framework. Because the order was passed by an Assistant Commissioner, the aggrieved party had an available appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the petitioner was required to pursue that remedy instead of directly invoking writ jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the merits of the capacity determination were matters for the appellate forum. The proceedings were therefore rejected on the ground that an efficacious statutory appeal lay against the order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable when an appeal lay against the impugned order.

Analysis: The impugned order was passed by an Assistant Commissioner, i.e. a Central Excise Officer lower in rank than a Commissioner of Central Excise. Under the appellate provision governing central excise matters, an aggrieved person could appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). Since the order was appealable, the petitioner ought to have pursued the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction directly. The Court also noted that the merits of the capacity determination were for the appellate forum to consider.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were finally rejected on the ground that a statutory appeal was available against the impugned order.

---