The existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the Court would normally not permit aggrieved parties to abandon the normal remedies of appeal in favor of a petition under Article 226. However, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 in cases where the alternative remedy is inadequate or would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner.

( 1 ) IN the writ petition the challenge is to the levy of excise duty on the outer shell (in which a slide has been inserted) which is being regarded by the Excise Authorities as a container within the meaning of Tariff Item No. 17 (4) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. 1944.

( 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 and 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 Triff Item 17 (4) and would not beentitled to any exception under Notification No. 66182-CE. At the time of preliminary hearing, it had been contended that in view of the said directive it will be futile for the petitioners to avail of the alternative remedy under the Act as the appellate authorities would be bound by the directive.

( 3 ) ON 25th August, 1982 rule nisi was issued and it was directed that the petition be heard by a Division Bench. On that day in C. M. No. 4020 of 1972 interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioners.

( 4 ) REPLY affidavit to the stay application has been filed by the respondents. It is contended by the respondents that alternative remedy is available to the petitioners under the Act, and this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article, 226 of the Constitution. It is stated that, wih effect from 11th October, 1982 Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as the Tribunal ) has been constituted, and amendments have also been made in Central Excises and Salt Act with effect from 11th October, 1982. According to the respondents, the result of the aforesaid amendments is that two appellate authorities, entirely indepsndent of the Board and of the Central Government, have been set-up. These authorities are Collector (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal. According to the respondents the said appellate authorities are in no way bound by the directive issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

( 5 ) THE amendments to the Excises and Customs Act were brough about by Finance No. 2 Act of 1982, which were enforced with effect from 11th October, 1982. prior to the amendments appeals could be filed, against the levy of excise duty, to the Appellate Collector and thereafter to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. A further opportunity was 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 and Custom. asvertheless, when such directives were issued, some of the aggrieved persons did challenge those directives by filing petitians 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 issued the directive. It was, observed that such appeal from caesar to Caesar could not be regarded as an adequate alternative remedy which was available to an aggrieved party.

( 6 ) AS a result of the amendment to the Excise Act first appeals can be filed to the Collector (Appeals) within three months from the date of the communication of the impugned order. Under section 35b a further appeal is provided against the order of the Collector (Appeals) to the Appellate Tribunal. According to the learned counsel tor the petitioners, notwithstanding the amendment of the Act, the Collector (Appeals) is still under the administrative control of the Central Board o