ORDER
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice Annexure-1 issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ratlam to the petitioner to show cause why the excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,10,424.50 should not be recovered from the petitioner as the petitioner had evaded payment of that duty.
2. The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows;
The petitioner is company registered under the Companies Act and carries on business at Nagda. The petitioner has an Engineering and Development Division at Nagda, where heavy machinery and their parts are manufactured and sold to other concerns. The Engineering and Development Division at Nagda is registered under the Factories Act as a ‘Factory’. On the ground that the petitioner has wrongly availed the benefit of the exemption granted by Notification No. 218/86, which came into force with effect from 24-4-1986, the show cause notice Annexure-1 was issued to the petitioner under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Aggrieved by that notice, the petitioner has filed this petition.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we have come to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be dismissed summarily. It was urged that the petitioner’s factory at Nagda, where the goods in question were produced, would amount to a ‘workshop’ and that the petitioner was entitled to exemption as provided by the notification Annexure-3. We refrain from expressing any opinion in that behalf because that is a question, which respondent No. 1 has yet to decide on the basis of the material, which would be brought on record by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice. Instead of showing cause before respondent No. 1, who has issued the notice, the petitioner has approached this Court and sought stay of recovery proceedings. It is not disputed that if the decision of respondent No. 1, after hearing the petitioner, would be adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner has the remedy of appeal available to it under the Act. It was contended that as the question of interpretation of the notification Annexure-2 was involved, It was not obligatory for the petitioner to seek the statutory remedies available to it under the Act. It is true that the question as to whether on the facts and In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is or is not entitled to claim exemption under the terms of the notification Annexure-2, will have to be ultimately decided. But that is a mixed question of law and fact and there is no satisfactory reason why the petitioner should not pursue the normal remedies available to It under the Act. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Limited and Ors., AIR 1985 S.C. 330 :-
“In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 S.C. 603 A.P. Sen, E.S. Venkataramian and R.B. Mishra, JJ. held that where the statute Itself provided the petitioners with an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Prescribed Authority, a second appeal to the Tribunal and thereafter to have the case stated to the High Court, it was not for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ignoring, as it were, the complete statutory machinery. That it has become necessary even now, for us to repeat this admonition is indeed a matter of tragic concern to us. Article 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory proceedings. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so Inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reasons to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely, matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available, are not such matters.”
4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the remedies said to be available to the petitioner under the Act were illusory. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to certain correspondence between the Confederation of Engineering Industry and the Government of India. It seems that on receipt of show cause notice Annexure-1, The Secretary of the Confederation of Engineering Industry had written a letter to the Chairman, Central Board of Excise to direct the Collector of Central Excise to allow the petitioner the benefit of exemption under notification Annexure-2. By letter Annexure-Y, the Under Secretary to the Government of India informed the Secretary of the Confederation of Engineering Industry that his request to issue the direction to the Collector could not be acceded to. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any provision of law, which made it obligatory for the Government of India to issue any such direction as was sought on behalf of the petitioner, when the matter was pending for consideration before the Assistant Collector. The refusal by the Government of India to issue any direction to the Assistant Collector or Collector to decide the case of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner cannot be construed as a direction to decide the case against the petitioner. The authorities designated under the Act are expected to decide the cases fairly, on the basis of the material on record and in accordance with the provisions of law. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the alternative remedies available to the petitioner under the Act are illusory, cannot therefore, be upheld.
5. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be held in the instant case, that the statutory remedies available to the petitioner are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of any extraordinary situation and that there is any good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by the Statute.
6. The petition, therefore, fails and is summarily dismissed.