A.Banerji, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated 27th June, 1984 passed by the Custom Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short Tribunal). The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Agra held that the petitioner was not eligible for exemption and concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 8/80-C.E., dated 18th June, 1980 as amended by Notification No. 50/81, dated 1st March, 1981. The appeal was rejected by the Collector. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the petitioners claimed that they were entitled to the exemption and concessional rate of duty as between two relevant dates 1st of April, 1981 to 17th of September, 1981, for they had not cleared glass and glassware valued at Rs. 15 lakhs. They also urged that the demand made by the Assistant Collector was barred by time. Both the arguments were rejected by the Tribunal. It held that the value of the clearance in the financial year 1981-82 exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs on 18th September, 1981 and, as such, the petitioners were not entitled to the concession. The Tribunal further held that the notice issued on 19th November, 1981 was not barred by time.
(2.) In this writ petition Mr. J.C. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioners, laid emphasis on both these points and urged that according to the figures of clearances mentioned in the notice itself, the total clearances upto 18th September, 1981 was less than Rs. 15 lakhs and, as such the petitioners were entitled to the concession contained in the Notification No. 8/80-C.E. He also challenged the notice dated 9th November, 1981 on the ground that the cause of action for the notice arose on the 1st of April, 1981 from which date the financial year commenced, and as the notice had not been given within six months of 1st April, 1981, it was barred by time.
(3.) Mr. R.S. Dhavan appearing for the respondent, Collector, Central Excise raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, as the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of a reference under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (In short Act). In support of his contention, learned Counsel cited two decisions of the Supreme Court viz., Lal Ji Haridas v. R.H. Bhatt-(1965) 55 I.T. 415 and Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1983 S.C. 603). Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged in reply that where the Court has entertained the writ petition, the availability of an alternative remedy would not stand in the way of the hearing and disposal of the writ petition on the merits.;