Cummins Technologies INDIA Private LTD Through Authorized Signatory Vajiraj Basvapattan vs. Deputy Commissioner Office Of Assistant Commissioner CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy. The Court noted the respondent's preliminary objection that the impugned order is appealable under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Citing judgments from the Apex Court, including Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited vs. Union of India and others, Hameed Kunju vs. Nizam, and Ansal Housing and Construction Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, the Court reiterated the principle that when a statute provides for a statutory appeal, that remedy must be availed by the litigating parties. Therefore, the Court found it improper to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with law, if so advised. No specific issue was left undecided; the petition was dismissed on the preliminary ground of alternative remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Cummins Technologies India Private Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore. The petitioner sought to quash an order dated January 28, 2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Division II Pithampur Dhar. Alternatively, the petitioner prayed for the impugned order to be kept in abeyance until the finalization of proceedings arising from four show cause notices dated April 11, 2017, August 17, 2017, December 20, 2017, and May 18, 2018, which were pending before the Tribunal. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as argued by the respondent. The petitioner's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. The respondent argued that the impugned order is appealable under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The respondent further submitted that identical petitions have been dismissed by this Court on the ground of availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy. The respondent relied on the Apex Court judgments in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited vs. Union of India and others (2014) 15 SCC 44, Hameed Kunju vs. Nizam (2017) 8 SCC 611, and Ansal Housing and Construction Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2016) 13 SCC 305, which emphasize availing statutory appeal remedies.