Dismissed

Ms Shree Bhimeshwari Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Other v. Union of India

Bombay HC3 Oct 2018WP/9121/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay, Civil Appeal Jurisdiction, heard three writ petitions challenging an order of Commissioner of Central Excise dated 31.1.2018. Court found identical grounds raised in WP No. 10558 of 2017 where alternate remedy via Tribunal was held efficacious. Petitions held inimical to law of alternate remedy; all dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitions are dismissed. No other relief.

Ms Shree Bhimeshwari Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Other Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

15-WP-6482-2018.DOC

¶2

Jitendra Shankar Nijasure Digitally signedby JitendraShankar NijasureDate: 2018.10.0418:03:01 +0530

¶3

jsn

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6482 OF 2018

¶6

M/s. Ambey Vaishno Steels Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner. V/s.

¶7

Union of India and Anr. …Respondents

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9916 OF 2018

¶9

M/s. Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ispat Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner. V/s.

¶10

Union of India and Anr. …Respondents

¶11

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9121 OF 2018

¶12

M/s. Shree Bhimeshwari Ispat Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner. V/s.

¶13

Union of India and Anr. …Respondents

¶14

Ms. Aarti Sawer, I/b V.M. Doiphode & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, with Mr. J.B. Mishra, for the Respondents in WP No. 6482 of 2018.

¶15

Mr. Sham Walve, with Maya Majumdar for Respondents in WP Nos. 9916 of 2018 and 9121 of 2018.

¶16

CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE: 3RD OCTOBER, 2018.

¶17

PC:-

¶18

Writ Petition Nos. 9916 of 2018 and 9121 of 2018 are not

¶19

on board. Mentioned. Upon mentioning taken up for consideration at the request of both the parties along with Writ Petition No. 6482

¶20

of 2018, which is on board today.

¶21

These Petitions challenge a common order dated 31st January, 2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act).

¶22

1/3

¶23

15-WP-6482-2018.DOC

¶24

Ms. Aarti Sawar, the learned counsel appearing in support of these three Petitions very fairly states that the issue arising herein (not giving of cross examination) was also a subject matter of consideration by this Court in Writ Petition No.10558 of 2017 ( M/s. Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India & Anr.) challenging the order dated 31 March 2017. The above Petition was dismissed on 25th September, 2018 on the ground that there is an efficacious alternate remedy of an appeal to challenge the order dated 31 March 2017 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) under the Act. Therefore, this Court refused to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a challenge to the order dated 31 March 2017.

¶25

Mr. Jetly, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents supports the contention made on behalf of the Petitioner. It is contended that the grounds of challenge herein are identical to the grounds of challenge in Writ Petition No. 10558 of 2017 ( M/s. Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India & Anr.)

¶26

In the above view, for the reasons indicated in our order dated 25th September, 2018 passed in the case of ( M/s. Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India & Anr.) in

¶27

2/3

¶28

15-WP-6482-2018.DOC

¶29

Writ Petition No.10558 of 2017, these Writ Petitions are not entertainedas there is an efficacious alternate remedy of challenging impugned order dated 31st January, 2018 of the Commissioner of Central Excise before the Tribunal under the Act.

¶30

Accordingly, all the three Petitions are dismissed.

¶31

( RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J. ) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

¶32

3/3

Ms Shree Bhimeshwari Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Other v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Shree Bhimeshwari Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Other v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Central Tax, Pune I Commissionerate

Arya Omnitalk Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of Inida Ministry of Finance through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

The Ulhasnagar Biscuit and Confectionery Manufactuers Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

the commissiner opf central excise-thane-i Vs m/s ajanta papeer and central products Ltd.

The Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-v Commissionerate Vs M/S. International Overseas Services

The Commissioner of Customs (Ns-Iii), Vs Rakesh Javerimal Shah