Shalimar Rubber Industries vs Union Of India
1997 Latest Caselaw 459 Del

ORDER

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.