2006 (8) TMI 216 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses challenge to excise duty notices on soft drink bottles, emphasizes alternative remedies

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging show cause notices issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise regarding excise duty on printed ... Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy Issues:1. Challenge to show cause notices issued by Assistant Collector, Central Excise.2. Levying of excise duty on printed soft drink bottles.3. Pending appeals and writ petitions challenging show cause notices.4. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226.5. Availability of alternative statutory remedy.6. Request for directions on pending matters.Analysis:1. The writ petition initially challenged two show cause notices issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, regarding the assessable value of soft drink bottles. The petitioner contended that excise duty on printed bottles was impermissible as printing was done separately. The subsequent show cause notices were challenged as well, leading to a series of appeals and writ petitions against the orders issued by the Assistant Collector.2. The main issue revolved around the imposition of excise duty on printed soft drink bottles, where the petitioner argued that duty had already been paid on the manufacturing cost of the bottles. The petitioner relied on a trade notice to support its case. The Collector (Appeals) later disposed of the appeals, holding that the show cause notices were non est, leading to the issuance of a fresh notice by the department.3. The Court deliberated on the pending appeals and writ petitions challenging the show cause notices. The petitioner sought to quash the notices based on previous orders and judgments. The Court observed the timeline of events, including the amendments to the writ petition and subsequent applications filed by the petitioner.4. The Court addressed the issue of the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226, considering the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The petitioner argued for the continuation of the writ petition despite the existence of an alternate remedy, citing various judgments in support of their position.5. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and the importance of not bypassing such remedies through writ proceedings under Article 226. Citing previous judgments, the Court highlighted the need to discourage the misuse of Article 226 for matters where statutory remedies are available. The Court concluded that the statutory proceedings should not be interfered with through discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.6. Finally, the Court provided directions on the pending matters, instructing the Assistant Collector to finalize and pronounce the order on the show cause notice within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the Court addressed the refund of the pre-deposit amount, setting a timeline for consideration and passing of orders on the refund request. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed, with specific directions given to the concerned authorities.