Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1170 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of petition - statutory appellate remedy - the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court to entertain these writ petitions by contending that the first respondent has not applied a binding decision of the Tribunal made in "Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III" case, since the issue involved in the said case and the facts and circumstances of the present case are one and the same - Held that: - the petitioners are not questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent in any manner. It is well settled that in fiscal matters, short circuiting the proceedings by way of filing the writ petitions cannot be entertained, unless the order passed was without jurisdiction or the same is erroneous on the face of it. It is held in those cases that when an alternative remedy is available, more particularly, in the cases of fiscal nature, invoking of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not permissible. When the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of appeal to file the appeal before the CESTAT, it is for them to file such appeal and canvass all the points. This Court exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to entertain these writ petitions only on the reason of availability of alternative remedy. The present writ petitions are not maintainable before this Court as the petitioners have to avail the alternative appellate remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|