Heera Electrodes vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India representing the respondents we are of the opinion that this writ petition should be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal - where he can raise all the points raised in this writ petition.

The plea of not affording adequate opportunity of inspecting the papers and documents relied upon in the impugned order, would depend on the facts of the case, which can be gone into in the appeal rather than in this petition. Similarly the question whether any prejudice was caused by not producing the branch manager for cross-examination would depend on what prayer was made for the same and whether his presence was necessary for cross-examination. This too will depend on other evidence and the facts of the case. All this involves sifting of evidence and examination of the materials on the record. We feel that this can be raised before the appellate authority. As regards the appreciation of evidence, this court will not undertake to reappraise evidence in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This can be done in greater detail by the appellate authority.

We are therefore, of the opinion that the writ petition must be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal u/s 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. This writ petition is accordingly rejected.