Debangsu Basak, J.:— The Court: An order dated May 4, 2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II Commissionerate is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, although the impugned order in original is appellable, the existing statutory alternative remedy does not bar the filing of the writ petition. He submits that, the impugned order does not consider five reported decisions of the Courts including two Supreme Court Judgements. The findings returned by the impugned are contrary to the ratio laid down in those five judgements. Moreover, there is a perversity which is apparent in the face of the record. Although, in the body of the order in original a liability of Rs. 5.88 crores is quantified the final order directs imposition of a penalty of Rs. 26.16 crores. Non-consideration judgements relied upon by the petitioners in the order in original amounts to breach of principles of natural justice.
3. Learned Advocate for the revenue submits that, although the five judgements cited on behalf of the petitioners does not appear to have been specifically dealt with, the order in original gives adequate and proper reasons for impositions as contained therein. He submits that, the grounds sought to be taken by the petitioners can be well be taken before the appellate authority. In such circumstances, he submits that, the writ should not be entertained.
4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
5. Three show cause-cum-demand notices were issued to the first petitioner. The first petitioner had replied thereto. In such reply, the first petitioner had taken a stand in support of its contentions. The first petitioner had referred to various judgments of the High Courts including the Supreme Court.
6. The impugned order is reasoned and runs into several pages. It considers the show cause-cum-demand notices as also the replies thereto. It confirms the demands made in the show cause-cum-demand notices and proceeds to impose penalties. Admittedly, the impugned order is appellable. Existence of a statutory alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition. Although there exists a statutory alternative remedy, a writ petition is still maintainable, if it can be established that, the fundamental rights stand breached, or that the order in original is wholly without jurisdiction or that, the impugned order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, or that the impugned order is non-speaking, or that the order impugned is vitiated by fraud or malice.
7. In the present case the order in original considers the rival contentions of the parties. It arrives at particular findings as returned. True the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners have not been dealt with in the order in original in the sense that, individual cases have not been discussed. The impugned order, however, proceeds to give reasons as to why it has arrived at its findings. The findings may be erroneous in law or in fact. The appellate authority has the jurisdiction to correct such errors, if there be any. As a Writ Court I am not called upon to exercise the jurisdiction of an appellate authority, reappraise the evidence and substitute the findings of the order in original. In the facts of the present case, non-consideration of judgments on behalf of the petitioners, ipso facto, does not lead one to infer that there is a failure of justice or that the principles of natural justice stands vitiated.
8. The allegations of perversity levelled against the impugned order remains unsubstantiated. The reasons for imposition of penalty and the adjudication are appearing from the impugned order.
9. In such circumstances, I am not minded to interfere in the present writ petition.
10. WP No. 485 of 2017 is dismissed. No order as to costs.