Page 87 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] KESORAM SPUN PIPES AND FOUNDRIES LTD. v. COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE 309

9. This Court is therefore of the opinion that there is no merit in the
contention urged by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The notification
clearly states that it is issued by the Central Government. 2002 Rules that are
produced permit the authentication thereof by the DGFT. Thus, the two chal-
lenges to the order; in this Court’s opinion do not actually merit consideration.
This Court finds that there are no errors in the said notification. Hence, this
Court holds that the challenge to the notification has to fail.
10. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 309 (Cal.)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sanjib Banerjee and Suvra Ghosh, JJ.
KESORAM SPUN PIPES AND FOUNDRIES LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE
A.P.O. No. 391 of 2017, G.A. No. 2872 of 2017 in W.P. No. 681 of 2014,
decided on 15-3-2019
Writ jurisdiction - Adjudication - Jurisdictional error committed by
Adjudicating authority - Appeal before Tribunal against Commissioner (Ap-
peals) order withdrawn without any liberty to approach any other forum as he
had declined to entertain appeal on merits for the reason that the same filed
beyond period of limitation - HELD : Right to approach constitutional Court
under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Article 32 ibid does not
require permission or liberty of any other forum - Qualitatively, authority ex-
ercised under Article 226 ibid not akin to appellate authority - As long as, it is
demonstrated that quasi-judicial order questioned in jurisdiction on account
of breach of principles of natural justice or in erroneous exercise of jurisdic-
tion or the like, writ petition can be entertained, though constitutional Court
always has discretion to not grant any relief on other grounds which are re-
quired to be recorded - In instant case jurisdictional error may have been
committed by adjudicating authority - Petitioner did not get chance to address
issue on merits on account of petitioner’s delay in filing appeal - Since juris-
dictional error amenable to correction within scope of judicial review exer-
cised in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ibid, there is no impedi-
ment in receiving petition or adjudicating on such aspect notwithstanding ap-
peal from order of adjudicating authority not being entertained on the ground
of limitation or appeal before Tribunal withdrawn since Commissioner (Ap-
peals) had only acted within bounds of his authority - Impugned order set
aside - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [paras 6, 17]
Cenvat credit - Use of common inputs in manufacture of dutiable as
well as exempted goods - Demand of 10% of value of exempted goods - Peti-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  87