Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1225 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of petition - Unjust enrichment - refund claim - refund claim rejected on the ground that there are multiple remedies to challenge this order. Firstly, there is a remedy to approach the Commissioner (First Appellate Authority) and eventually the Tribunal. Held that: - Once we have seen that this is not a case entirely based on refund of amounts deposited as pre deposit but there was a blend or mix of such sums with the amount paid under protest, then, all the more we do not think that the judgments on the point of a writ being maintainable despite availability of alternate efficacious remedy would be applicable in the facts of this case. We are mindful of the fact that availability of an alternate equally efficacious remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not a prohibition but a rule of caution and prudence. Eventually everything must depend on facts and circumstances in each case. The petitions cannot be entertained on the ground that there are factual issues involved. The mixed questions of fact and law are, therefore, capable of being properly resolved in the appellate remedies available to the petitioners under the scheme of the Central Excise Act - petition dismissed as not maintainable - decided against petitioner.
|