Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy bar prevented review of a fact-intensive excise demand and penalty challenge.

A writ petition challenging an excise demand and penalty based on alleged suppression of production and clearance was not entertained because the dispute was fact-intensive and a statutory appellate remedy was available under the Central Excise Act. The High Court declined to undertake appreciation of evidence in writ jurisdiction and held that the parties should pursue the appropriate alternative forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy and the factual nature of the controversy.

Analysis: The challenge was to an excise demand and penalty based on alleged suppression of production and clearance. The order proceeded on intelligence reports and factual findings, and the availability of an appeal under the Central Excise Act weighed against invocation of writ jurisdiction. In such a fact-intensive dispute, the High Court declined to enter upon appreciation of evidence and left the parties to the appropriate forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the appropriate remedy.

---