JUDGMENT

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in A.P. O.T. No. 447 of 2009 with W.P. No. 483 of 2009, dated February 3, 2010 See Guwahati Carbon Ltd. v. Union of India (2013) 19 GSTR 502 (Cal).

3. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench has set aside the orders passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 483 of 2009 and has remanded the matter for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law by the learned single judge.

4. Admittedly, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata ("the Tribunal" for short), had passed the order, inter alia, holding that the Respondent herein are not entitled to include freight and insurance charges in the assessable value, and therefore, the duty levied under the Central Excise Act, 1944 ("the Act" for short) requires to be recalculated. Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent herein had filed a writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Though the learned single judge had admitted the petition on the first date of hearing, subsequently thought it fit to dispose of the writ petition on the ground that the Respondent can avail of an alternative remedy as provided by the Act.

5. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned single judge, the assessee had carried the matter in appeal to the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench has allowed the appeal on the ground that a writ court, in exercise of its powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India, has vast powers to decide any question that may arise under the provisions of the Act.

6. We reiterate that the High Court, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, has vast powers as this Court has under article 32 of the Constitution of India, but such powers can only be exercised in those cases where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in Defence of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. In the instant case, the adjudicating authority has passed an order holding that the Respondent herein had inflated the assessable value of their product by misdeclaring the actual place of removal and further included the element of transportation cost to the assessable value of the goods cleared for delivery from the place of removal, i.e., factory premises to the buyers' premises. The order passed by the adjudicating authority was reversed by the Commissioner of Appeals in appeal filed by the Assessee/Respondent. The order so passed was carried in appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal. In this appeal, the Tribunal has passed an order in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee/respondent.

8. The Assessee/respondent, for the reasons best known, had filed a writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As we have earlier noticed, though the learned single judge thought it fit to examine the issues raised in the writ petition and on subsequent date, on the date fixed for final disposal, thought it fit to direct the Assessee to avail of the alternate remedy provided under the statute itself. The orders so passed was called in question by the Assessee/respondent before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench has taken the view that in a petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has vast powers to modify, vary or annul an order passed by the statutory Tribunal under the provisions of the Act, and accordingly, has allowed the writ appeal, remanding the matter back to the learned single judge with a direction to restore the writ petition to its file and decide the same on merits.

9. Before we discuss the correctne