TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emsp;The order under challenge, the nature of the relief sought for and the facts based on which the relief sought for and the issue involved in all the four writ petitions are one and the same as such the common order is being passed in all the four writ petitions. 3. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP circular Woven Socks and articles of plastics falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and is eligible to avail the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs and capital goods for the period 2000-2001 and the assessee was as par Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules permitted to pay the duty on fortnightly basis. As there was some default on the part of the petitioner to pay duty, the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty liability in addition to imposing penalty on the petitioner company of Rs. 11,07,635/-. 4. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner filed separate appeals before the first respondent who is the first appellate authority. The petitioner has filed the appeals along with two applications one to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty as required u/s. 35F of Central Excise Act and other petition to stay the operation of the order of the adjudicating authority. The 1st respondent entertained the appeals along with the petitions and has passed orders which according to the petitioner is without giving notice to the petitioner company, thereby directing the petitioner company to pre-deposit 50% of the duty confirmed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the petitioner, that the correctness and the validity of the original orders are for the first time challenged before the first appellate authority on merits in the light of judgment of the Bombay High Court in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd., case reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 351 (Bom) which supports the main claim of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner when there are conflicting decisions on the same issue the claim made by the petitioner requires thorough examination and any condition to pay 50% of the amount to entertain the appeal filed against the same will render the petitioner's right to avail the statutory remedy not meaningful and ineffective, and the conditional order in the absence of strong prima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons made on both sides. 8. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the standing counsel for the respondents cited authorities for and against their respective contention raised on both sides. But as the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy is seriously questioned before this court this court is inclined to first dispose of the maintainability issue. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited catenna of judgments in support of his argument that the writ jurisdiction can be invoked not withstanding the availability of alternative remedy which are (1) 1998 (101) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) in ITC Ltd. v. Union of India; (2) 2000 (120) E.L.T. 602 (Ker.) in Thressiamma v. Union of India; (3) 2001....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A Act the order challenged before the Supreme Court is the order directing the appellant to make pre-deposit and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and the order was challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has suo moto entertained the issues relating to the availability alternative remedy and has proceeded to deal with the matter and finally dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court has in unequivocal terms held that only under exceptional circumstances as laid down in para 42 of the judgment of the supreme court i.e., when there is complete lack of jurisdiction and violation of rules and principles of natural justices or when the tribunal acted under provision of law which is declared as....