CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2001) 03 PAT CK 0075

Balajee Ingot India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India (UOI) and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 21 March 2001 · Citation: (2001) 3 PLJR 20

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J · Shashank Kr. Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. No. 3661 of 2001
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 359 words
1.

The Petitioner M/s Balajee Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., challenges the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Calcutta in Appeal No. E-108 of 1999 and Cross Objection No. C.O. 29 of 1999 arising out of an order dated 16 December 1998 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Patna between Balajee Ingot India Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs, Central Excise, Patna. The order of the tribunal is dated 20 October, 2000.

2.

There is an issue whether an abatement is permissible or not if the unit of the Petitioner does not produce notified goods.

3.

Right from the time of assessment, thereafter in appeal and before the appellate tribunal the Petitioner was well advised to take recourse to the procedures prescribed by amendment to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. This is Chapter VI A.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner concedes that u/s 35G the Petitioner may file an application to require the appellate tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out, of the order of the tribunal. It is also accepted that u/s 35F the tribunal may consider to pass an ad interim order even if it amounts to dispensation (sic) deposit of excise duty subject to such condition as the tribunal may impose.

5.

Merely because earlier the (sic) petition was filed at the High Court Straightaway by avoiding procedures prescribed under the law and circumventing alternate remedy will be no binding precedent on this Court as the cardinal principle on which prerogative writ jurisdiction rests is that all alternate remedies should be exhausted before a writ petition is filed.

6.

The last submission was that the matter before the tribunal possibly may Take a long time. In this regard, this cannot be a submission that an alternate Remedy will be avoided. This only shows that the writ petition was filed only to obtain a stay order.

7.

In the circumstances, as there is a clear cut alternate remedy as also a provision to seek an ad interim order there is no reason as to why the Court ought to entertain the writ petition.

8.

Dismissed.