Madhya Pradesh High Court
Steel Ingots Ltd. vs Asstt. Collector Of Central Excise on 30 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(98)ELT353(MP)
ORDER N.K. Jain, J.
1. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 5-5-1992 (Annexure P2) passed by Respondent No. 1 and for directing the respondents to give Modvat credit to the petitioner in respect of the items mentioned in the petition.
2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. In order to avail Modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the petitioner Company filed a declaration in the prescribed form in respect of Modvat credit on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of its final product "steel ingots and C.C. Billets". However, the Respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 5-5-1992 (Annexure P2) disallowed the petitioner's prayer holding that the said inputs are not admissible for Modvat credit as they are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. It is this order of the Respondent No. 1 which is under challenge in this petition.
3. The respondents have opposed the petition and taken preliminary objection as to its tenability on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal.
4. I have heard Counsel for the parties.
5. While learned Counsel for the respondents maintained its objection as to the tenability of the petition, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the point projected in this petition stands concluded by the decisions in the cases of Singh Alloys & Steel Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 594 and Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune -1996 (88) E.L.T. 355. He, however, concedes that the order impugned is appealable.
6. In the case of Labhchand (AIR 1994 SC 754) it is held :
"When a Statutory Forum or Tribunal is specially created by a statutes for redressal of specified grievances of persons on certain matters, the High Court should not normally permit such persons to ventilate their specified grievances before it by entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is a legal position which is too well settled."
7. This Court in M.P. No. 2188/93 (M/s. Star Strips) and M.P. No. 2074/93 (Sterling Structural P. Ltd. v. Union of India), decided on 16-8-1995 and 13-1-1997 respectively, has held that where alternative remedy by way of appeal is available, recourse to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not permissible. The petitioner is however, free to bring to the notice of the appellate authority the two decisions in the cases [of] Singh Alloys and Bajaj Auto (supra). There can be no manner of doubt that the appellate authority while deciding the appeal shall take into consideration these decisions.
8. In the result the petition is disposed of with the directions as under :
(A) Without touching the merits of the petition the petitioner is granted liberty to file appropriate appeal against the order impugned. If appeal is filed within 2 months from today, the respondent shall not oppose the appeal on the ground of bar of limitation;
(B) The interim stay passed by this Court on 14-5-1992 shall remain operative till expiry of the said period of 2 months or till filing of the appeal whichever is earlier; and (C) The parties are left to bear their own costs as incurred.
Cc within 3 days on payment of usual charges.