Back
1996 Supreme(Mad) 1198
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVARAJ PATIL
Madura Coats Limited - Appellant
Versus
Government of India - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 13572/92, 14761/92, 9844/93 and 11129/93
Decided On : 29 November 1996
The existence of an alternative remedy of appeal is a bar to the entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CENTRAL EXCISE - CLASSIFICATION - COTTON CANVASS AND DUCK FABRICS - CLASSIFICATION UNDER HEADINGS 52.05 AND 52.06 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF ACT, 1985 - WHETHER THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS DATED 5-11-1993 - WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY OF APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a leading textile company, challenged the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise reclassifying cotton canvass and duck fabrics under different headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, resulting in higher duty liability. The petitioners contended that the reclassification was contrary to the provisions of the Act and the statutory instructions of the Government of India, and that they were entitled to the benefit of the order issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 5-11-1993, which clarified the classification of these fabrics under Heading 52.06. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned orders and that the Court should not interfere in such matters.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned orders and that the existence of such an alternative remedy was a bar to the entertainment of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court further held that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the order issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 5-11-1993, as it was not applicable to past closed assessments.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned orders. 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the order issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 5-11-1993.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of the same Court in "Madura Coats Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai" 1996 (81) ELT 201, 1996 (64) ECR 464 (Mad.), which held that interference in such matters in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, overlooking the provisions regarding appeal, is not at all warranted and it would be opposed to the very scheme and policy of the law. 2. The Court also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in "Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise" 1997 AIR(SC) 69, 1996 (7) AD(SC) 86, 1996 (87) ELT 19, 1997 (5) Supreme 405, 1996 (6) Scale 702, 1996 (10) SCC 387, 1996 (16) RLT 501 (S.C.), which held that the order issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 5-11-1993 was binding on all the Courts, Tribunals and authorities.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, but directed that if the petitioners filed appeals before the appellate authorities against the impugned orders within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, the appellate authorities shall decide such appeals on merits and in accordance with law, without going to the question of limitation.
The petitioners in W.P. No. 13572/92 and 14761 of 1992 have sought for writ ofcertiorarito quash the Order No. 52/92 - C. No. V/52/30/7/91, dated August, 1992 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai-I Division, and the Order No. 46/92, dated 25-8-1992 and No. 47/92, dated 27-8-1992 - C. No. V/52.06/3/74/89-Cell of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Tirunelveli respectively. The petitioner in W.P. No. 13572/92 has filed W.P. No. 9844 of 1993 for writ ofcertiorari, to quash the Order No. VIII/48/4/91/6130, dated 29-3-1993 of the first respondent, i.e., Assistant Collector of Customs & Anti-Smuggling, Tuticorin. The petitioner in W.P. No. 14761 of 1992 has filed W.P. No. 11129 of 1993 challenging the order No. VIII/48/4/91-DBK, dated 1-6-1993 of the first respondent - Assistant Collector of Customs & Anti-Smuggling, Tuticorin with a prayer to quash it.
2.In all these writ petitions, common questions of law arise for consideration of similar facts. Hence they are being disposed of by this common order.
3.In my view it would be enough to briefly state the facts of the case in one writ petition and the case as pleaded by the respondent in the counter affidavit.
4.It is stated that the petitioner company is one of the leading and largest textile company in India employing about 20, 000 persons with a current annual turnover of Rs. 500 crores. The goods record of the petitioner company in terms of durability and quality of textile fabrics manufactured by it has created good overseas market in the foreign countries. For decades it has maintained the consistent record as the leading Exporter of textiles.
5.The cotton canvass and Duck fabrics were initially classified and cleared under the Tariff Item 19-I(i) of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. After the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force from 28-2-1986, the petitioner filed classification lists classifying the cotton canvass/duck fabrics under the Chapter Headings 52.05/52.06 which were corresponding to Tariff Item 19-I(i), and the same were approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, the third respondent and the petitioner was clearing the cotton canvass and duck fabrics under the Chapter Headings 52.05 and 52.06 of the Act as approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.
6.In order to meet the revised annual target collection of excise duty fixed by the Central Board of Excise, giving their own interpretations and reasons contrary to the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944
7.In the writ petitions, it is contended that the reasoning of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise in ordering reclassification is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Statutory instructions of the Government of India, and discriminates the petitioner; with the introductions of the Act, the cotton canvass/duck fabrics were classified under the Headings 52.05 and 52.06; the classification lists filed by the petitioner were approved during the years 1986 to 1990 by the competent authority. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has given facts leading to the writ petition and the provisions of law in great details. I do not think it necessary to narrate the facts in detail in the view I am proposing to take in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
8.The respondents have filed counter affidavit in W.P. No. 13572 of 1992, opposing the claim of the petitioner, and filed W.M.P. No. 26591 of 1992 in W.P. No. 14761 of 1992, and W.M.P. No. 21369 of 1993 in W.P. No. 9844 of 1993 for vacating the interim stay.
9.As can be seen from the counter affidavit filed and the affidavits filed in support of the petitions for vacating the interim stay, the respondents have given the details, opposing the claim of the petitioner, and have sought for dismissal of the writ petition. Besides denying the claim
