Page 184 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

94 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

pros and cons of the cases arising under the Customs Act, 1962 and there-
fore they are better disposed of to deal with the situations arising under the
said ‘Regulations of 2013’ namely “prohibitions” under Regulation 23, sus-
pension of licence under Regulation 19, cancellation of licence under Regu-
lation 18 and imposition of penalty under Regulation 20.
24. As far as exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
is concerned, it is well settled that the Rule of alternative remedy is not a
Rule of bar of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitu-
tion of India, but a Rule of discretion invoked by the Court in its extra-
ordinary jurisdiction and this Court would be slow in invoking the extra-
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the
order impugned before it have not passed through the Forums of appellate
remedies provided under the relevant statutes. The purpose is that the Au-
thorities created under the relevant statute must apply their mind to the
relevant facts, evidence, objections and submissions of the rival parties, as-
sessee on the one hand, revenue on the other hand and record their own
reasons in writing for taking a particular view of the matter on either side
of the issues so that the Constitutional Courts have the benefit of the final
orders passed by such Authorities created under the statute and are not
called upon to decide the issues prematurely without the Authorities under
the Act in a hierarchy of channels provided under the relevant statutes ap-
ply their mind and pass appropriate orders.
25. Once this Court comes to the conclusion as it had already laid down in
the earlier case in the case of M/s. Capricorn Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that
the impugned order under Regulation 23 is an appealable order before the
CESTAT under Section 129A of the Act read with Regulation 21, it is not
considered appropriate to touch the merits of the case and deal with the
same, lest it prejudices the case of either of the parties before the Tribunal. It
appears that on account of ex parte interim order granted in the present case
by the coordinate Bench on 23-3-2016 staying all further proceedings in
pursuance of Annexure B which is the impugned order under Regulation
23, the Respondent Customs Department has not been able to take any fur-
ther proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order Annexure B under
Regulation 23.
26. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of as
not maintainable with a liberty to the petitioner assessee to avail the reme-
dy by way of an appeal under Section 129A of the Act read with Regulation
21 before the Tribunal, if so advised in accordance with law.”
44. We in fact agree with the said view taken by one of us in the said
Judgment of the Karnataka High Court and we hereby reiterate and amplify the
said view.
45. Even though we can make further our reasons and justification for
interfering with the order of the CESTAT impugned herein by exploring the mer-
its of the case, but we refrain ourselves from doing so, as that would cause prej-
udice to the parties before the CESTAT, since the CESTAT has not so far decided
anything on merits.
46. In view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Karnataka High Court
which we affirm and agree and in view of the reasons stated hereinabove, we are
of the opinion that, no party in an adjudicating proceedings can be rendered
remediless by way of appeal and if any such contrary view is taken by Courts of

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  184