Manwani Steels (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
held: writ - alternative remedy--appeal--order confirming demand of duty, imposition of penalty and confiscation of seized goods with option to redeem on payment of fine--recourse to writ jurisdiction of the court not permissible in a case where alternative remedy by way of appeal is available. court directs that appeals, if filed within two months, be not opposed on ground of bar of limitation--article 226 of the constitution of india; cea: sections 35 & 35b.;petition dismissed. - constitution of india 1055. article 141; [a.k. patnaik, c.j., dipak misra, abhay gohil, s. samvatsar, & s.k. gangele, jj] dismissal of slp arising from decision of high court whether binding precedent decision of division bench in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh, [2007(ii) mpjr 229] overruled.....ordern.k. jain, j.1. this order shall dispose of all the four aforesaid petitions made under article 226/227 of the constitution of india.2. briefly stated the facts common to all these petitions are that the petitioners are partnership firms carrying on business of manufacturing twisted bars falling under chapter 72 of the central excise and tariff act. the respondent no. 2, after show-cause notice passed identical orders dated 5.8.1993 (annexure p/9 in the petitions no. 2074/93, 2106/93 and 2126/93 and p/8 in petition no. 2183/93) against the petitioners demanding a particular sum as excise duty and also imposing penalty with a direction to confiscate the seized goods with liberty to obtain redemption on payment of fine. these orders are challenged in these petitions on the ground that.....

Judgment:
ORDER

N.K. Jain, J.

1. This order shall dispose of all the four aforesaid petitions made under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Briefly stated the facts common to all these petitions are that the petitioners are partnership firms carrying on business of manufacturing twisted bars falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act. The respondent No. 2, after show-cause notice passed identical orders dated 5.8.1993 (Annexure P/9 in the petitions No. 2074/93, 2106/93 and 2126/93 and P/8 in petition No. 2183/93) against the petitioners demanding a particular sum as excise duty and also imposing penalty with a direction to confiscate the seized goods with liberty to obtain redemption on payment of fine. These orders are challenged in these petitions on the ground that the petitioners are illegally denied the benefit of the exemption available through Notifications 90/88 and 202/88.

3. The respondents have filed the returns opposing the petitions and taken preliminary objection as to the tenability of these petitions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties.

5. Counsel for the parties agreed that the point projected in these petitions stands concluded by the decision of this Court made on 16.8.1995 in a similar matter in M.P. No. 2188/93 (Star Strips (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.) wherein this Court following the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Labh Chand : (1993)IILLJ724SC has held that where alternative remedy by way of appeal is available, recourse to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not permissible. In Labhchand's case (supra) the Apex Court has 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 Article 226 of the Constitution is a legal position which is too well settled.

In the case of M/s. Star Strips (supra) this Court has disposed of the petition with certain directions. This petition also, therefore, deserves to be disposed of in the same manner.

6. In the result the petitions are disposed of with the directions as under:

a) Without touching the merits of the petitions, the petitioners are granted liberty to file appropriate appeal against the orders impugned in these petitions within two months from today. If appeals are filed within this period, the respondent shall not oppose those appeals on the ground of bar of limitation;

b) The interim order of stay passed by this Court on 22.11.1993 in each petition shall remain operative till expiry of the said period of 2 months; and

c) The parties are left to bear their own costs of these petitions as incurred.

7. This order be retained in M.P. No. 2074/93 and a copy be placed in M.P. No. 2106/93, 2126/93 and 2183/93.