TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (4) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Salt Act, 1944 (for short, `the Act'), read with Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, `the Rules'). 3.The petitioner No. 1 is a Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the Company. The petitioners have a factory at Pithampur in M.P. where they manufacture motor scooters with engine capacity of 90 cc and mopeds with engine capacity of 50 cc or less. The petitioners while seeking Modvat credit filed declaration forms with respondent No. 3 declaring two wheeled motor vehicles as their final products without distinguishing between scooters and mopeds. Total amount for which the credit was availed of during the period from Oct. 1987 to 31st March, 1991 amounted to Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7.I have heard Shri Atul Sitalwad, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Shri S.N. Kohli, Adv., for the petitioners and Shri P.K. Saxena, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Shri B.G. Nema, Adv., for the respondents. 8.Shri Saxena besides contesting the petition on merits has raised preliminary objection as to the tenability of the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. He contended that the petitioner should contest the notice before respondent No. 2 himself and resort to appropriate remedy. As against it, Shri Sitalwad submitted that the show cause notice being without jurisdiction it is amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court. He contended that the petition having been admitted should now b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r passed by the Collector, Central Excise is appealable to the appellate authority under Section 35B of the Act. Under the circumstances, resort to writ jurisdiction of this Court by the noticee is not permissible. 10.In the case of Labhchand (AIR 1994 SC 754) it is held : "When a Statutory Forum or Tribunal is specially created by a statutes for redressal of specified grievances of persons on certain matters, the High Court should not normally permit such persons to ventilate their specified grievances before it by entertaining petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution is a legal position which is too well settled." 11This Court in the case of. Grasim Industries Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 74 (M.P.) in para 17 held : "It is, thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he time, ripe indeed, to exercise restrain, halt rush and push such cases towards their proper destination ? The Calendar of Court is quite congested. Should the Writ Court then be not more strict to prevent inflow of cases which can be examined elsewhere and possibly with specific expertise?" 13.The decision rendered in the case of M/s. Methodex Systems P. Ltd (Supra) stands confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. and the S.L.P. preferred by the noticee was also dismissed in motion by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 14.It will be thus seen that latest view of the Apex Court as also of this Court is that power under Art. 226/227 should not be exercised where alternative remedy is available and which has not been availed of.....