NEO SACKS LIMITED Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN landmark judgments sometimes generate avoidable debate. The celebrated judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [air 1997 SC1125], which rendered the decisions/judgments of Tribunals set up under Articles 323a and [323b] of the Constitution, amenable to judicial scrutiny of a Division Bench of High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, is no exception.

(2.) THE present controversy is all about the fall-out of this judgment and arises from two writ petitions wherein petitioners are resisting payment of excise duty and are aggrieved of the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short CEGAT ). The petitions are opposed by Respondents on the priliminary objection that this Court had no jurisdiction to test the validity of the CEGAT order/ decision in the face of judgment supra as the Tribunal was not the creature of Article 323b. In other words it is sought to be projected that the direction contained in the judgment supra reviving the power of the High Courts to judicially review the decisions of Tribunal was limited to such Tribunals only as were established under Articles 323a and 323b and since the CEGAT was created under the Customs Act and the Central Excise Act, this Court was not competent to examine the validity of its orders/decisions on the strength of directions contained in Chandra Kumar's case. Alternatively it is submitted that even if it was conceded that the Supreme Court judgment was attracted to it still this Court was helpless in the matter as it fell outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction. Lastly it was urged that the two writ petitions were not entertainable as the petitioners had failed to exhaust the alternative statutory remedy provided under Section 35l of the Excise Act.

(3.) FOLLOWING issues were thrown up for consideration in this backdrop :