TMI Blog1982 (11) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. In the petition it was, inter alia contended that the said levy is being made by the Excise Authorities in pursuance of a directive contained in a letter dated 7th April, 1982 issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs to all the Collectors of Central Excise. In the said letter it was stated that the aforesaid printed shells are in the nature of printed boxes and were classifiable under Tariff Item 17(4) and would not be entitled to any exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E. At the time of preliminary hearing, it had been contended that in view of the said directive it will be futile for the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy under the Act as the appellate authorities would be bound by the directive. 3. On 25th Aug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s granted whereby revision could be filed to the Central Government against the order of the Central Board. Though it was expected that the quasi-judicial authorities would be acting in disregard of any directives which are issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs, nevertheless, when such directives were issued, some of the aggrieved persons did challenge those directives by filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Depending upon the facts of each case, Courts used to interfere in appropriate cases, notwithstanding an alternative remedy being open. The reason why the writ Court did not insist on the petitioner availing of the alternative remedy used to be that the appeal ultimately lay to that very authority who had is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Act, then the Court is hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction of the issuance of a high prerogative writ. There are number of circumstances, however, where notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy Courts do exercise their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. For example, if any action is taken or threatened to be taken without jurisdiction then it has been held that the existence of an alternative remedy is no bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Similarly, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the alternative remedy provided under the Act is not adequate or cannot inspire confidence, inasmuch as it would amount to an appeal from 'Caesar to Caesar' then again a writ Court may e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that at times excise duty is a recurring liability and there will be no power with the Collector (Appeals) or the Tribunal to grant stay for furture liability. In our opinion the power of the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal, contained in the proviso to Section 35F, is of a wide amplitude. In appropriate cases the said appellate authorities will have the power to issue directions with regard to future levy which may be imposed or threatened. Apart from the proviso to Section 35F, the appellate authority has inherent power of granting interim relief in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. This has been so recognised and explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Mohd. Kunni, 92 I.T.R. 341. We mus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals) is laid down in Section 35A. There is no reason to presume that the Collector (Appeals) will not follow the said procedure. In Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1969 S.C. 48 = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 345) it has been categorically held by the Supreme Court, even with regard to the position which entailed prior to the amendment in 1982, that the revisional power under Section 36 of the Act of the Central Government was a quasi-judicial power and the power which is exercised by the Appellate Collector was also quasi-judicial power. This power is to be exercised independently and in disregard of any directives which are issued by the Central Government. We are sure that the Appellate Authorities under the Act would act independe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the face of the record; (4) that it was based on extraneous or male fide considerations; (5) that the statutory remedy was not adequate or was onerous; (6) that resort to the statutory remedy would cause irreparable injury to the Petitioner, (7) that the impugned order infringes on a fundamental right of the party; (8) that the provision of law under which the order was passed is itself unconstitutional." 12. We hasten to add, that it is not in every case, where any of the aforesaid grounds exist, that the Court would be bound to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even if one or more of the aforesaid grounds exist, the Court would still have to decide, on the facts of each case, whether to interfere or not. The d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
