J.M.P. Industries vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The challenge in the writ proceedings here is to the impugned order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jalandhar of November 23,1987, dismissing as premature the petitioner''s claim for refund of excise duty. 2. The impugned order is admittedly an appealable order inasmuch as, an appeal against it lies to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi. The petitioner thus has an equally efficacious alternative remedy and the impugned order does not, therefore, warrant interference by this Court, in its writ jurisdiction.

Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that once the writ petition had been admitted to hearing, it should not be dismissed on the ground that the alteranative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. He relied in this behalf upon the judgment of the High Court of Patna in Shri Madhav Mills Private Limited Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . In that case, the writ petition had been filed as far back as 1979 and it had come up for hearing about 5 years thereafter in 1984. It was in that context held that the writ petition having been admitted in 1979, should not now be defeated on the ground of an alternative remedy being available.

In the present case, it will be seen that the challenge, as mentioned earlier, is to an order passed as recently as November, 1987. This being the situation, there is no justification to permit the petitioner to bye the clearly effective alternative remedy provided to him by law.

To be fair and just to the petitioner, it is, however, directed that if the appeal is filed by the petitioner on or before October 31, 1988, no objection shall be raised against it on the ground of limitation.

This writ petition is accordingly hereby dismissed with these observations. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.