2018 (10) TMI 830

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner of Central Excise Act under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). The common impugned order dated 31st March, 2017 confirms demand for excise duty and also imposes penalties under the Act. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner to the common impugned order dated 31st March, 2017 is that it has been passed without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to cross examine the person whose statement is being relied upon by the Revenue. Thus, it is submitted that this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order dated 31st March, 2017. 3. Mr. Walve, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Revenue states that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available under the Act to challenge the impugn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Tansingh Nathmal case, Titagarh Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nation to the Petitioner to come to the conclusion that in these facts, it need not be granted. Thus, if the Petitioner is aggrieved with regard to the manner in which the impugned order has refused to grant cross examination, that is an issue which could be appropriately agitated before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Tribunal. This for the reason that it would require factual determination of whether or not, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the cross examination as requested, ought to be given. Therefore, in the present facts, the impugned order is not an order without jurisdiction, if at all, at the highest, it could be an error within jurisdiction. Therefore, a proper subject of appeal, before the Tribunal. Therefore, the ....