Bombay High Court
My Own Eco-Energy Private Ltd vs Union Of India Throu. The Sec. Minsitry ... on 8 September, 2025
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
Digitally signed
by MULEY
MULEY SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO
PRAVINRAO Date: 28-WP-10545-2024.DOCX
2025.09.11
15:12:23 +0530
Shubham
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10545 OF 2024
My Own Eco-energy Private Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10546 OF 2024
______________________________________________________
Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Brijesh Pathak for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar a/w Sangeeta Yadav for Respondents.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S. Sonak &
Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
DATED : 08 September 2025
P.C.:-
1. Learned counsel for the parties state that common issues
of law and facts arise in these Petitions and therefore a common
order could dispose of them by treating Writ Petition No.10545 of
2024 as the lead Petition.
2. The Petitioner in the lead Petition seeks the following
substantive reliefs:-
(a) THAT this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ,
order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other
28-WP-10545-2024.DOCX
appropriate writ thereby declaring that the Impugned Show
Cause Notice No. 107/ADC/GR.I&IA/NS-I/CAC/JNCH dated
23.04.2024 issued by Respondent No.2, Exhibit B, issued to the
Petitioner, by the Respondent No.2 is cryptic and without any
material evidence (including Test Report) for changing the
classification of the goods, which causes and deserves to be
quashed and/or set aside;
(b) THAT this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of
Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
calling for the record and proceedings of the impugned Order
No. 358/2024-25/ADC/GR-I & IA/NS-I/CAC/JNCH dated
13.06.2024, Exhibit H, and all other records pertaining thereof
and after considering the validity, legality and propriety of the
said Order, changing the classification and confiscating the
goods, be pleased to quash and/or set aside the Impugned
Order, Exhibit-H;
3. Admittedly, as against the impugned order, the Petitioner
has an alternate and efficacious remedy of an appeal available.
However, the Petitioner seeks a departure from the practice of
exhaustion of alternate remedies by alleging that this was a matter
where principles of natural justice were breached.
4. In support, the argument advanced before us is that the
test report, which is relied upon in the impugned order, had
considered only 5 out of 21 parameters, which were otherwise
required to be considered for determining whether the product is
HSB. Mr. Shah learned senior counsel for the Petitioner relied on a
28-WP-10545-2024.DOCX
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gastrade
International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla1, to submit that
all 21 parameters had to be considered before any opinion could be
formed regarding the product being HSB. He submitted that given
the cryptic finding in the impugned order and the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gastrade International
(supra), this Court must entertain this Petition, set aside the
impugned order, and if necessary, remand the matter to the
adjudicating authority for reconsideration.
5. In this case, Mr. Chandrashekhar, learned counsel for the
Respondents pointed out that this Court, by its order dated 11
September 2024 had, after recording consent of the learned counsel
for the parties, appointed a team from the Commissionerate,
Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House to visit the factory premises as well
as office premises of the Petitioner to ascertain the veracity of
Petitioner's contention that it had the necessary machinery and
wherewithal to blend the product. He submitted that a panchnama
was drawn, and the results are adverse to what was contended by
the Petitioner. Mr. Shah, referring to the panchnama, contends that
the results are not adverse and that the Petitioner has the necessary
machinery and wherewithal for blending purposes.
6. We have also perused the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Gastrade International (supra) and based on
certain factual observations therein, we are not too sure whether the
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 366
28-WP-10545-2024.DOCX
Petitioners are correct in their construction of the ratio decidendi.
7. In any event, we are satisfied that this is not a clear-cut
case of the breach of the principles of natural justice. Besides, we are
also satisfied that the issue of wherewithal and machinery for
blending would constitute a disputed question of fact which the
Appellate Authority best addresses.
8. In the above circumstances, we are not satisfied that we
should allow the Petitioner to deviate from the normal practice of
exhaustion of an alternate statutory remedy.
9. In the case of Oberoi Constructions Ltd. Vs. Union of
India and other connected matters (Writ Petition (L) No.33260 of
2023) disposed of on 11 November 2024, we have considered
several precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court on
the issue of exhaustion of alternate remedies. By following the
reasoning therein, as also the reasoning in the several precedents
referred to therein, we do not think that any exceptional case is
made out to deviate from the normal practice of exhaustion of
alternate remedies.
10. Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of all the
above facts, we decline to entertain these Petitions. However, we
leave it to the Petitioners to avail of the alternate remedy of Appeal,
if they so choose.
11. If the Appeals are instituted within a period of four weeks
of the uploading of this order after complying with the requisite
28-WP-10545-2024.DOCX
conditions, like pre-deposit, etc., the appellate authority must
consider such Appeals on merits without adverting to the issue of
limitation. This is because these Petitions were instituted within the
prescribed period of limitation and have been pending to date before
this Court. Thus, Petitioners were bona fide pursuing these Petitions.
12. All contentions of all parties on merits, including the
contentions raised in these Petitions, are expressly left open. Our
observations in this order need not influence the appellate authority
because such observations are made in the context of the plea about
an alternate remedy available to the Petitioners, as was raised on
behalf of the learned counsel for the Respondent.
13. Further, in the peculiar facts of this case, we request the
appellate authority to expedite the disposal of the Appeals. Both
these Petitions are disposed of with liberty in the above terms. No
costs.
14. All concerned must act upon an authenticated copy of
this order.
(Advait M. Sethna, J) (M.S. Sonak, J.)
