STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LTD. Vs. COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this, application, prayer made is to dismiss the writ petition as being non-maintainable because the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal provided under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (in short the 1944 Act).

(2.) VIDE notice dated 23.3.1994, the Collector, Central Excise Collectorate, called upon the petitioner to show-cause why penalty should not be imposed upon it under rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules. Vide the said notice, petitioner was asked to produce at the time of showing cause all the evidence, documentary or otherwise, upon which it intended to rely in support of its defence. Petitioner was also asked to state whether it wishes to be heard in person or through its legal representative before the case is adjudicated. Petitioner instead of submitting its reply or evidence, filed the present writ petition. It is contended that by the counsel for the respondent that the writ petition is pre-mature as the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal provided under the 1944 Act. I find force in the contention of counsel for the respondent. In the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;