M/S Om Swami Samarth Engineers Thr. Bandu Dnyanu Yadav v. The Union Of India Thr. Secretary Ministry Of Finance Dept. Of Revenue And ORS.
05-WP-39-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.39 OF 2026 M/s. Om Swami Samarth
...Petitioner
Engineers through its Proprietor Mr. Bandu Dnyanu Yadav
Versus
The Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
------ Mr. Santosh Punalkar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Killedar a/w Shivraj Jagadale, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP, for Respondent Nos.3 to 5-State. ------ Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ.
Date: April 20, 2026 P.C.:
1.
At the outset, Mr. Killedar, learned Counsel along with Mr. Jagadale, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Kalel, learned AGP, for Respondent Nos.3 to 5-State, state that there is an alternate remedy of a Revision under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and, therefore, the Writ Petition be not entertained. 2.
In view of the said contention raised by learned Counsels for the Respondents, Mr. Punalkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, seeks withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to avail the alternate remedy.
Arjun
05-WP-39-2026.doc 3.
The impugned Order is dated 29th October 2025 and the Writ Petition has been iled challenging the same on 5th January 2026. The Revision under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is to be preferred within a period of 3 months.
4.
It is clear that the Writ Petition has been iled well within the said period of 3 months. Accordingly, if the alternate remedy of Revision under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or any other alternate remedy is iled within a period of 4 weeks, the same be disposed of on merits.
5.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
6.
It is clariied that this Court has not considered the merits and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open. [Pravin S. Patil, J.] [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.] Arjun