ORDER
1. Challenging the judgment of the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Varanasi, dismissing the refund claimed by the Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi for Rs. 3,34,40,100 the petitioner went up in appeal to the Collector Central Excise under Section 35 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) by holding that:
There is no dispute that the Ministry of Railways had agreed to clear all the arrears of central excise duty of all excisable goods manufactured by the various workshops under their control. They had issued clear directions to the General Manager Diesel Locomotives, Varanasi, the appellant to pay all the arrears of excise duty and had also directed the financial adviser incharge to make necessary Budget provision for paying the arrears. Hence the appellant having acted as per the directions of their Ministry and paid the arrears of excise duty in pursuance of these directions, has no locus standi to raise objections about non-issue of show cause notice etc. at this stage. The purpose of raising such objection at this stage is also not clear especially when the Ministry of Railways had no problem in paying all the arrears of excise duty. The appellants claim for refund of duty merely on the so-called technical ground that the amount was recovered without issue of a formal notice, has no force.
2. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. We have heard Sri J.C. Bharadwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, Section 35B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 confers a right of filing appeal to the Appellate Tribunal to a person aggrieved as against the orders enumerated therein. The order passed by the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) is mentioned in Section 35B of the Act and as such, an appeal could be filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal.
4. We are of the opinion that since the petitioner has a right provided by the statute itself under which the application for refund was moved by the petitioner and upon whose dismissal he went up in appeal, it is not possible for us to exercise our discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution and entertain the present writ petition. In the present writ petition, the questions raised are such which are mixed questions of fact and law. For deciding the questions of fact, the Appellate Tribunal is the appropriate forum.
5. Consequently, we dismiss the present writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.