Natural justice and alternative remedy: repeated access to records defeated the non-supply challenge and barred writ interference.

Repeated opportunities to inspect seized records and take copies were treated as sufficient compliance with the requirement to supply relied upon documents, so no breach of natural justice was established because prejudice was not shown. The Court also reiterated that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an effective statutory appeal exists, and, absent any exceptional ground such as jurisdictional error or clear denial of natural justice, the alternative appellate remedy weighed against interference. On that basis, the adjudication orders were sustained and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned adjudication orders were liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice on the ground that copies of relied upon documents were not supplied; (ii) whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned adjudication orders were liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice on the ground that copies of relied upon documents were not supplied.

Analysis: The petitioner alleged that non-supply of 34 documents prevented an effective reply to the show-cause notices. The Court found, on the record and the counter-affidavit, that the petitioner had repeatedly been permitted to inspect the seized records, take photocopies through its own Xerox machine, and obtain time for that purpose on several occasions. The petitioner never raised any contemporaneous complaint that relied upon documents were unavailable, and the plea of prejudice was not established. In these circumstances, the Court held that examination of records and taking copies satisfied the requirement of furnishing the documents, and there was no failure of natural justice.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of natural justice failed and the impugned orders were not liable to be set aside on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal.

Analysis: The Court noted that an appeal under the Central Excise law was available against the adjudication orders. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, save in exceptional situations such as jurisdictional error or clear breach of natural justice. Since the petitioner had not shown any such exception and had already been granted opportunities in the adjudicatory process, the availability of appeal weighed against interference under Article 226.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable in the facts of the case in view of the alternative appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication orders were sustained and the writ petitions were dismissed, with no interference on merits under writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the party was afforded repeated opportunities to inspect and copy relied upon documents, no prejudice or denial of natural justice is established, and writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked when an effective statutory appeal is available.

---