PURELLA VENKATACHALAN Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the adjudication order No. 218/67 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Rajahmundry in his D. O. R. No. 27/65 dated 23. 11. 1967 imposing a penalty of Rs. 659-34 being the duty on 333 kgs of I. A. A. tobacco received into his premises. This Writ petition is resisted by three respondent on merits as well as on the grounds that the petitioner is having an effective alternative remedy of appeal. The question involved in this Writ Petition being one of fact to be decided on the material, oral and documentary evidence on record, it would have been appropriate for the petitioner to have referred the statutory remedy of appeal to the Collector. To a pointed question raised by me the petitioner's learned counsel submitted that at the time of the tiling of the Writ petition, his client was being harassed by the departmental authorities and hence he preferred to approach this court directly without availing the statutory remedies. The learned Government Pleader also stated that the departmental authorities would consider the appeal if the petitioner prefers one with an application for the condonation of the delay. As there is a change in the personel of the departmental authorities, who are alleged to have given trouble to the petitioner, 1 feel it just and proper to dismiss this Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner may approach the Collector, Central Excise by prefering a stuatory appeal with an application to Condone the delay in filing. The petitioner may prefer an appeal to the Collector with an application to condone the delay and I am sure the Collector will consider the desirability of condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In circumstances there shall be no order as to cost.