Union Carbide (India) Ltd. vs Assistant Collector Of Central Excise on 15 March, 1984
10. Controverting the above submissions, made on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Saikia has raised two preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition. In this regard, Mr. Saikia submits that though no provision for appeal has been made in the Act against seizure of books of account, etc., and also as regard seizure of stock of goods, Section 82 of the Act does make provisions for revision against such seizure. Since the seizures, made in the present case, are, according to Mr. Saikia, subject to the power of revision under Section 82, there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners and, hence, in such circumstances, writ jurisdiction has been wrongly sought to be invoked by the petitioners. Support for these submissions is sought to be derived by Mr. Saikia from the cases of State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. , Union of India v. Hindalco Industries and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. .