(1.) The short ground which is canvassed by the appellant is that the Court of the first instance failed to appreciate the extent of the breach of the principles of natural justice in course of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolkata-III Commissionarate passing the order that was challenged by way of a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) It is elementary that an order in respect whereof some other remedy lies may not be amenable to a challenge under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India unless the challenger can demonstrate gross violation of the principles of natural justice or the order being absurd to the meanest mind. Even though such grounds are also available by way of a regular remedy of appeal or revision or the like, these are the exceptions to the self-imposed restriction exercised by the writ Court not ordinarily entertaining a challenge by way of a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution when an efficacious, alternative remedy is available to the petitioner.
(3.) It is not necessary to go into the elaborate facts that culminated in the order of the said Commissioner being passed or in the writ petition being carried therefrom. It may only be noticed that there is a dispute between the excise authorities and the appellant-assessee as to the quantam of excise duty that ought to have been paid by the assessee for several assessment years only on the question of whether the freight or delivery charges for reaching the manufactured goods by the assessee to its clients had been charged by the assessee from the clients.