TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24-9-2004 passed by CESTAT, Mumbai. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that as the credit of duties paid on inputs used in relation to the manufacture of yarns sold under exemption to Regd. Co-operative Societies in plain reel hanks would not be the petitioner company did not avail credit of duties paid on these quantities of fibres which were used in relation to yarns cleared under the above exemption and also maintaind accounts of such transactions. A show cause notice was issued proposing to recover amount of Rs. 6,83,313/- on the ground that the petitioner company has taken this amount as credit regarding duties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner had no defence. 8. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. 9. Mr. Hardik Modh, learned advocate appearing for Mr. P M. Dave for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the petition, though certain documents were called for, the same could not be traced out. The petitioner made it clear vide letter dated 24-2-2006 that on the basis of RG 23A Parts-I and II, it can be established that the petitioner had not taken credit of inputs of fibers used for yarns sold under exemption. It is further stated that the Tribunal has held in order, dated 23-2-2004 that this fact can very well be established from the RG 23 Part II record and it needs no other certifying authority. 10. Mr. Modh has fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Patna, 1997 (91) E.L.T. 497 = (1997) 4 S.C.C. 641 wherein it is held that the High Court should not interfere, in tax matters, by exercise of writ jurisdiction where alternative efficacious remedies are available. 12. Mr. Malkan has further submitted that this Court vide order dated 21-1-2006 observed that the petitioner has been able to produce some of the documents and time was sought for to produce rest of the documents. However, the said documents have not been produced and hence, no useful purpose would be served to remand the matter again to the adjudicating authority. If the petitioner is in possession of the said documents, the same can very well be examined by the adjudicating authority even during the pendency of this petition a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be decided in that case, he may ask for the said documents after justifying the necessity thereof. 14. So far as Mr. Malkan's objection with regard to alternative efficacious remedy is concerned, it is true that the petitioner could have filed an appeal before this Court. However, looking to the issue involved in this petition and since there is no blanket ban on the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that in no case, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. We are of the view that interest of justice would better be served if the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of the claim of the petitioner in light of RG23A Part I I registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
