M/S.Mideast Integrated Steels LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that it would not entertain the writ application as an alternative effective adjudicative process by way of an appeal before the CESTAT was available to the petitioner. The Court declined to enter into the merits of the petitioner's contentions, including the claim of financial distress and the argument that enforcement of the order might lead to double payment of excise duty. These contentions were to be canvassed before the Tribunal. The Court directed that if an appeal was filed within four weeks from the date of the order, along with a petition for condonation of delay, the delay might be favourably considered due to the petitioner having approached the High Court. The petitioner was left to raise all contentions before the Tribunal.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ application before the High Court challenging an order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Commissionerate. The petitioner sought to challenge this order on various grounds. However, the petitioner's counsel fairly admitted that the order was amenable to appeal under Section 35(b) of the Central Excise Act before the CESTAT. The petitioner cited financial distress as a reason for approaching the High Court directly. The Court noted that an alternative effective adjudicative process was available.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ application when an alternative effective appellate remedy is available under Section 35(b) of the Central Excise Act. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, facing financial distress, sought to bypass the appellate route and directly challenge the order before the High Court. The petitioner also intended to raise contentions regarding potential double payment of excise duty before the High Court. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel appeared, and the Court acknowledged the availability of the appellate remedy before the CESTAT. No specific argument was recorded for the revenue beyond their appearance.
Sections Cited
Section 35(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
18.06.2018
Heard Mr. K.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned counsel appearing for the Central Excise Customs and Service Tax Department.
In the present writ application, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Commissionerate on various grounds.
Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the aforesaid order is amenable to appeal under Section 35(b) of the Central Excise Act before the CESTAT. He, however, pleads that the petitioner is in financial distress.
We are afraid we cannot accept this contention for the purpose of entertaining the present writ application since an alternative effective adjudicative process is available to the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we, at this stage, do not wish to enter into the merits of the contentions and, in particular, the contention that enforcement of the order may amount to double payment of excise duty and leave it to the petitioner to canvass the same before the Tribunal. If any appeal is filed
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.