TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and re-determining the value in all the said notices by rejecting the value declared by the petitioner and imposing differential duty along with interest and penalty. 2. The petitioner is engaged in import of polyester spun yarn etc. which had fallen under OGL category. It cleared the goods on payment of customs duty and no benefit under any import scheme was claimed. The yarn imported were sold as such and also used in the manufacture of fabrics by the petitioner. On 7.6.2011 and 8.6.2011, the officials of Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted search at the residential premises of the Director and factory premises of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 9.6.2011, respondent No.2 asked respondent No.3 to hold the consignments ly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the petitioner. The petitioner filed replies to the said show cause notices. Respondent No.3 vide order-in-original dated 9/12.2.2018 (Annexure P-3) rejected the value declared by the petitioner and after re-determining the transactional value, imposed the differential duty along with interest and penalty upon the petitioner. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 27.6.2012 (Annexure P-4) in respect of goods detained vide Panchnama dated 29.6.2011 at the factory premises of the petitioner was issued to the Director of the petitioner. The adjudicating authority enhanced the value and confirmed the custom duty of Rs. 23,97,913/- and also levied the penalty of equal amount upon the petitioner. The goods were confiscated and allowed to be red....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 when an equally efficacious alternate remedy was available to the assessee under the Act. 15. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., (1965) 2 SCR 653; Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436; S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572; Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75; Kerala SEB vs. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695; L.L. Sudhakar Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2001) 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509; Pratap Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 484 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2003) 1 SCC 72). 17. In Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India, (2011) 14 SCC 337, this Court has held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford, 141 ER 486 in the following passage: (ER p. 495) '... There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon a statute. ... But there is a third class viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. ... The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to.' The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd., 1919 AC 368 and has been reaffirmed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1; Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1998) 8 SCC 272; Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 209 and Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, (2001) 6 SCC 569). 18. In Union of India vs. Guwahati Carbon Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 651, this Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle and observed: "8. Before we discuss the correctness of the impugned order, we intend to remind ourselves the observations made by this Court in Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, (1979) 3 SCC 83. In the said decision, this Court was pleased to observe that: (SCC p. 88, para 23). "23. ... when a revenue statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular rem....