- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shalimar Rubber Industries v. Union Of India
Factual and Procedural Background
The petition challenges two orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal: the order dated 9 April 1996 and the subsequent order dated 5 February 1997 on an application for rectification of the earlier order. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, despite the availability of alternative remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, including an appeal under Section 35L and a reference under Section 35G.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the existence of statutory remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
- Whether the recent Supreme Court decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India precludes an appeal under Section 35L of the Act and mandates filing only a writ petition under Article 226.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Relied on the Supreme Court decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, particularly paragraphs 91 and 92, to contend that appeal under Section 35L is no longer maintainable and that only a writ petition under Article 226 is permissible.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Submitted that the ratio of the L. Chandra Kumar decision does not extinguish the right of appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
- Argued that since alternative statutory remedies exist, the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in this case.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India | Clarification on the availability of statutory appeals versus writ petitions under Article 226 in the context of Tribunal orders. | The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on this decision to bypass statutory appeals and held that the right of appeal under Section 35L of the Act remains intact. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the statutory framework under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, noting the availability of alternative remedies including an appeal under Section 35L and a reference under Section 35G. The court considered the petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in L. Chandra Kumar, which was argued to preclude appeals under Section 35L and to mandate writ petitions instead. However, the court found that the ratio of the L. Chandra Kumar decision does not abolish the statutory right of appeal under Section 35L. Given the existence of these alternative remedies, the court concluded that it was not appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in this matter and thus declined to entertain the writ petition.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is dismissed.
The direct consequence is that the petitioner must pursue the statutory remedies provided under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, specifically the appeal under Section 35L or reference under Section 35G, rather than resorting to a writ petition under Article 226. The court’s decision does not set a new precedent but reaffirms the continued availability and primacy of statutory appeals over writ jurisdiction in this context.
1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 9 April, 1996 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal as also to the order dated 5 February, 1997 passed by the Tribunal on an application filed by the petitioner for rectification of the order dated 9 April, 1996. Against the order dated 5 February, 1997 the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 provides for remedy of reference to this Court under Section 35G of the Act. It may be noticed that the order made on rectification application is an order under Section 35-O of the Act. The order of the Tribunal dated 9th April, 1996 is appealable before Supreme Court as provided in Section 35L of the Act.
2. In view of these alternative remedies we do not think that it is a fit case where we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Chandrasekharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, and in particular paragraphs 91 and 92 of the said decision in support of the contention that now appeal under Section 35L does not lie and only a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution can be filed. We do not agree. In our opinion there is substance in the submission of Mr. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the Government that the ratio of Chandra Kumar's decision is not to take away right of appeal provided under Section 35L of the Act. In this view we decline to entertain the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
Alert