1. Excise exemption dispute — Claim for exemption under Notification No. 71/78 after availing exemptions under Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 602
1999(7) Supreme 325
Supreme Court of India
K. Venkataswami & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
Chanan Singh & Sons -Appellant
versus
Collector of Central Excise -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1556 of 1987
Decided on 6-5-1999
Important Points
The Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable when a statutory alternative remedy exists. Additionally, it affirmed that exemption under Notification No. 71/78 is unavailable if the party has already availed exemptions under Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71.
Subject
Taxation Law - Exemption
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Writ Petition - Alternative remedy-Writ petition against order of Central Excise Tribunal-Dismissal on ground alternative remedy of appeal available-Justified-High Court right in dismissing writ petition directing appellant to avail statutory alternative remedy. (Para 2)
(ii) Central Excise-Notification No. 71/78 and Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71-Exemption- Appellant availed exemption under Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71-Claim for exemption under Notification under 71/78-Not permissible. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to Tribunal order via writ petition — Dispute over availability of statutory alternative remedy and eligibility for specific excise exemptions. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. High Court correctly directed the use of statutory alternative remedy; Tribunal's finding on the exclusivity of excise exemptions was correct. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Writ petitions are maintainable only in the absence of a statutory alternative remedy; certain tax exemptions are mutually exclusive. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Is a writ petition maintainable when a statutory alternative remedy exists?
No, the court held that the High Court was correct in dismissing a writ petition and directing the party to avail the available statutory alternative remedy. (Para 2 )
7. Does availing exemptions under Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71 preclude exemption under Notification No. 71/78?
Yes, the court affirmed that the exemption under Notification No. 71/78 is not available to those who have already enjoyed exemptions under Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71. (Para 3 )
Order
None appears for the appellant.
2. This appeal by special leave is preferred against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 5781/86, dated February 6, 1987. The appellant challenged before the High Court an order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal of the Revenue. The High Court simply said that the appellant had a statutory alternative remedy and the appellant had to avail that statutory remedy instead of filing writ petition. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The appellant instead of challenging the order of the Tribunal by availing the statutory alternative remedy, has filed this appeal by special leave challenging the order of the High Court. We are of the view that the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition directing the appellant to avail the statutory alternative remedy.
3. Even on merits the specific finding of the Tribunal that the claim of the appellant for exemption under Notification No. 71/78 will not be available in view of the exemption availed by them under Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71 appears to be correct. The fact that appellant enjoyed the exemption or concession under Notification Nos. 101/71 and 153/71 is not disputed and if that be so, the exemption under Notification No. 71/78 will not be available to them. Accordingly, the Tribunal was right, and there is no case for interference.
4. The appeal is dismissed.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
*************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Chanan Singh & Sons. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1999(7) Supreme 325 : 1999(84) ECR 296
00020
