A Writ Petition is not maintainable when an effective alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party under the relevant Act.

Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in C.No. IV/ 16/ 20/ 2020-Adj, Order-in Original No.07/2022 dated 28.03.2022 quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Raveekumar

For Respondent(s): M/s. Rajendran Raghavan for RR-1 to 3

Mr.Sethu Prabakaran, Government Counsel for RR-4 & 5

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order-in-original passed by the 3rd respondent thereby imposing penalties under the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

The petitioner was a registered dealer under the jurisdiction of the 5th respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Government awarded the contract for supply of Gold Coins to one M/s.TCJ Impex Orivate Limited which in turn placed orders with M/s.Arunachala Impext Private Limited who in turn entrusted the work to the petitioner for supply of the gold coins. Accordingly, the petitioner purchased gold coins and sent the same to M/s.Aditya Enterprises who engrossed the emblem of the State government and tendered the same to Arunchala Impex Pvt Ltd as agreed.

According to the petitioner, though the petitioner is only a trader who was placed with order for supply of gold coins and not the manufacturer and that it was Aditya Enterprises who actually engrossed the emblem of the Government of Tamil Nadu, weight and carat, however, without considering the above facts, the 3rd respondent, upon conducting investigation, had proceeded to pass the Impugned order-in-original dated 28.03.2022 demanding Central excise duty on manufacture and clearance of 22 carat gold coins engraved with emblem/brand name. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed during the pendency of the W.P.No.6798 of 2021 wherein, petitioner had challenged the show cause notice dated 08.11.2019. It is further submitted that the said show cause was served on the petitioner only on 18.01.2021 and therefore the respondent ought not have proceeded to pass the impugned order in original. Accordingly, he prayed for passing appropriate orders.

Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as against the impugned order, there is an effective remedy of appeal under the provisions of Central Excise Act before the Commissioner (Appeals). Without exhausting the said remedy, filing a Writ Petition before this Court is not sustainable. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

In view of the effective remedy of appeal available as against the order impugned, under the provisions of the Central Excise Act 2021, before the Commissioner of Appeals which is not disputed by the petitioner, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to canvass all the points raised in the present Writ Petition before the appellate authority so as to enable the authority to decide the issue on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that the period during which the Writ Petition was pending before this Court shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

17-06-2026

Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

NHS