SOUTHERN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES Vs. SUPDT OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEALS under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bakthavatsalam dated 21-9-1989 and made in the exercise of the Spl. Original jurisdiction of the High Court in W.P. numbers 6838/82, 7507/82, 7500/82, 7501/82, 7503/82, 7505/82, 7506/82, 7508/82, 7509/82, 7511/82 and 7513/82 respectively on the file of this Court. Order: This Writ APPEALS coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the order of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bakthavatsalam dated 21-9-1989 and made in the exercise of the Special Original Jurisdiction of the High Court in W.P. Nos. 6838/82, -7507/82, 7500/82, 7501/82, 7503/82, 7505/82, 7506/82, 7508/82, 7509/82, 7511/82 and 7513/82 respectively and all ether papers material to these cases and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Thiagarajan for M/s. R. Mohanasundaram and T. Muthuraman, Advocate for the Appellant in each of the Writ APPEALS and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents in all the Writ APPEALS, the Court made the following Order :- On the learned Single Judge holding that the appellants are having alternative remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act and more particularly after the constitution of the Tribunal which had come into existence since 11-10-1982, these Writ appeals are preferred.

(2.) THE writ petitions were filed in 1982 after the adjudicating authority i.e. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, had passed orders holding that the disputed items would come under Tariff Item 30-D of the Central Excise Tariff.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Mr. R. Thiagarajan for the appellants would submit that such an opportunity having been given, and when the matter involved interpretation of the relevant items under the Central Excise Tariff, and this Court having entertained the matter in 1982 could not have dismissed the writ petitions after seven long years, by directing the parties to seek for alternative remedies. He also submits that the points involved are only confined to the interpretation of the concerned items under the Central Excise Tariff i.e. whether the product manufactured would fall either under Tariff Item 30-D or Tariff Item 68 and that this is an aspect which ought to have been gone into by the learned Judge and that he was not correct in holding that this Court could not exercise its jurisdiction in a matter of this kind. It is contended by him that the learned Judge proceeded on the basis that the writ petitions are not maintainable in spite of referring to the decision in W.P. No. 9865 of 1987 dated 26-9-1988.