Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. SATHIADEV & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PADMINI JESUDDURAI
Southern Engineering Industries - Appellant
Versus
Supdt. of Central Excise - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 865 to 875/89
Decided On : 13 October 1990
CENTRAL EXCISE ACT - INTERPRETATION OF TARIFF ITEMS - ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - DELAY IN FILING APPEALS - CONDONATION OF DELAY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed writ petitions in 1982 challenging the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, holding that the disputed items would come under Tariff Item 30-D of the Central Excise Tariff. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that the appellants had alternative remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act and more particularly after the constitution of the Tribunal which had come into existence since 11-10-1982.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the existence of alternative remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act. However, the Court also held that the delay in filing appeals by the appellants should be condoned and directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeals and dispose them of on merits within three months from the date of presentation of the appeals.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the existence of alternative remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act? 2. Whether the delay in filing appeals by the appellants should be condoned?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the existence of alternative remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd. wherein it was held that in matters involving revenue, when statutory remedies are available, then it is proper to direct the parties to seek such remedies, be it in admission stage or at final hearing stage. 2. The Court held that the delay in filing appeals by the appellants should be condoned. The Court took into account the fact that the matter had been pending in the High Court for seven long years and that the delay was not the fault of the appellants. The Court also took into account the fact that the respondents had failed to move the High Court in 1982 or 1983 to get suitable orders by pointing out the existence of alternative remedies.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ appeals and directed the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing appeals by the appellants and to entertain and dispose of the appeals on merits within three months from the date of presentation of the appeals.
Sathiadev, A.CJ.
Appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bakthavatsalam dated 21-9-1989 and made in the exercise of the Spl. Original jurisdiction of the High Court in W.P. numbers 6838/82, 7507/82, 7500/82, 7501/82, 7503/82, 7505/82, 7506/82, 7508/82, 7509/82, 7511/82 and 7513/82 respectively on the file of this Court.
Order: This Writ Appeals coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the order of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bakthavatsalam dated 21-9-1989 and made in the exercise of the Special Original Jurisdiction of the High Court in W.P. Nos. 6838/82, -7507/82, 7500/82, 7501/82, 7503/82, 7505/82, 7506/82, 7508/82, 7509/82, 7511/82 and 7513/82 respectively and all ether papers material to these cases and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Thiagarajan for M/s. R. Mohanasundaram and T. Muthuraman, Advocate for the Appellant in each of the Writ Appeals and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents in all the Writ Appeals, the Court made the following Order :-
On the learned Single Judge holding that the appellants are having alternative remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act and more particularly after the constitution of the Tribunal which had come into existence since 11-10-1982, these Writ appeals are preferred.
2.The writ petitions were filed in 1982 after the adjudicating authority i.e. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, had passed orders holding that the disputed items would come under Tariff Item 30-D of the Central Excise Tariff.
3.Earlier to that order, some of the appellants had filed W.P. No. 5169/81 etc. batch and this Court by order dated 12-7-1982 dismissed the writ petitions directing the parties to approach the adjudicating authority and stating that, if they are unsuccessful, then they could file writ petitions in this Court.
4.Learned Counsel Mr. R. Thiagarajan for the appellants would submit that such an opportunity having been given, and when the matter involved interpretation of the relevant items under the Central Excise Tariff, and this Court having entertained the matter in 1982 could not have dismissed the writ petitions after seven long years, by directing the parties to seek for alternative remedies. He also submits that the points involved are only confined to the interpretation of the concerned items under the Central Excise Tariff i.e. whether the product manufactured would fall either under Tariff Item 30-D or Tariff Item 68 and that this is an aspect which ought to have been gone into by the learned Judge and that he was not correct in holding that this Court could not exercise its jurisdiction in a matter of this kind. It is contended by him that the learned Judge proceeded on the basis that the writ petitions are not maintainable in spite of referring to the decision in W.P. No. 9865 of 1987 dated 26-9-1988.
5.A careful reading of the order would show that rather the learned Judge had relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CMP No. 15166/87 in WA No. 1730/87 dated 25-10-1988 and other decisions referred to in the order wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of this Court had not been specifically taken away by the amendment to the excise act.
6.Being conscious of the fact that this Court has the necessary jurisdiction, the learned Judge had considered that after the Tribunal had been constituted and when effective remedies are existing, it would be appropriate for the appellants first to have the appellate authority for suitable orders and if unsuccessful, then approach the Tribunal. Nowhere the learned Judge held that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable.
7.In support of the plea that even though alternative remedy is there, still when the aspect of interpretation is involved, this Court could entertain Writ Petitions; the learned Counsel refers to the decision inAsstt. Collector of Central E
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
