2018 (9) TMI 250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deep S. Jetly, for the Respondent. ORDER : 1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 31st January 2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act"). 2. At the very outset, we pointed out to the Petitioner that there is a statutory alternative remedy available under Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 31st January 2017. Thus, according to her, the impugned order is without effective hearing. 4. On perusal of the impugned order dated 31st January 2017, we find that it does not record that at the hearing further time was granted to the Petitioner to make further submissions. On the contrary, it records that at the personal hearing on 18th Janua....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als). This he submits would be contrary to Section 35 of the Act. It is submitted that in terms of Section 35 of the Act the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has power to condone a delay beyond the normal period of 60 days and for a further period of 30 days. Besides, he submits moving this Petition was not bonafide as the Petitioner was put to notice by the preamble of the impugned order,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cere, absence of deceit in prosecuting the Petition. However, we are not in agreement with the Petitioner's contention of a justified case to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. We find that an alternate efficacious remedy is available to the Petitioner, where he could get the same relief. Moreover, we are of the view that when the Act itself provides for a remedy to challenge an ord....