1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.2784 of 2011 M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary & Head Legal Mr.Rajiv Kumar Choubey, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Madurai Bye Pass Road, T.V.Puram, Tuticorin-628 002. ... Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, C-50, SIPCOT, Tuticorin-628 008 ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records compromised in Order-in-Original No.6 of 2010, dated 23.12.2010 on the file of the respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Maharajan For Respondent : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan ORDER The petitioner company represented by its Secretary, Head Legal Department has filed the present writ petition challenging the order in Original No.6 of 2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Tuticorin, dated 23.12.2010. By the impugned order, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of Rs.5,000/- in terms of Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 for violating the conditions stipulated by the competent authority, pursuant to the trade notice No.37/2002, dated 12.04.2002 issued by the competent authority. The Assistant Commissioner namely, the respondent in his own order had stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order is entitled to file an appeal under Section 35 found in Chapter 6-A of the Central Excise Act 1944. 2.When the matter came up on 10.03.2011, this Court while ordering notice regarding admission granted interim stay for a period of two weeks. Subsequently, by a further order dated 24.03.2011, the interim stay was extended until further orders. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The ground raised by the petitioner in the affidavit that identical writ petitions are pending before this Court and therefore, those writ petitions could be heard and for this purpose, reliance was placed upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Panki Thermal Power Station and another Vs.Vidyut Mazdoor Sangathan reported in (2005) 13 SCC 394 wherein it is observed that the issues are interlinked they may be disposed of by a common order. In the present case, such a question need not be gone into as the writ petition itself is not maintainable in the light of the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Rajeev Kumar Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan reported in 2010 (4) SCC 554, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under identical circumstances, if any person aggrieved by an order passed by the authority under the Central Excise Act, they must have availed the inbuilt alternative remedy under the Act and no writ petition can be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Shivhare V. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2010) 4 SCC 772, wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with an alternative remedy available under the FEMA Act held that the Act cannot be bypassed and the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. In the following passages found in paragraphs 31 and 32, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "31.When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In this case the High Court is a statutory forum of appeal on a question of law. That should not be abdicated and given a go-by by a litigant for invoking the forum of judicial review of the respect, fell into a manifest error by not appreciating this aspect of the matter. It has however dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 32.No reason could be assigned by the appellant's counsel to demonstrate why the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of FEMA does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason since the High Court itself is the appellate forum." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5.In view of the above, the writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, C-50, SIPCOT, Tuticorin-628 008 Writ Petition (MD)No.2784 of 2011 19.10.2011 sms SMA/9.11.2011/2C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/