JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner no. 1 has a factory which manufactures industrial gases, viz. , oxygen, acetylene, nitrogen and ordinary compressed air. These gases are sold to the purchasers filled in steel cylinders which are returnable to the petitioner after they have been emptied. The petitioner charges some amount for retention of the cylinders by the purchasers beyond a specified period. The question is whether this amount recovered by the petitioner from the purchasers described as "rent of the cylinders" is to be included in the assessable value of the goods as the packing material while computing the value in accordance with Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioners contention is that this amount of rent recovered by it for the cylinders cannot be included in the value of the assessable goods computed in accordance with Section 4 (4) (d) of the Act. Apparently this contention of the petitioner is yet to be decided on merits and the only thing done so far by which the petitioner is aggrieved, is the issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner. Instead of showing cause why the rent recovered by it for the supply of cylinders should not be included in the value of assessable goods and getting a decision of the assessing authority, respondent no. 4, the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, and thereafter pursuing the further remedies provided in the Act, the petitioner has filed this writ petition merely after issuance of the show cause notice and filing of its reply to it. The question is whether we should interfere in our writ jurisdiction in such a situation. ( 2. ) ADMITTEDLY, the assessing authority has still to decide the above point raised by the petitioner and in case of an adverse decision, the petitioner has further remedy of appeals and thereafter the remedy of approaching this Court by a reference and then a further appeal to the Supreme Court as provided in the Act by extensive amendment of Section 35 of the Act by Finance Act No. 2 of 1980 which was brought into force from 11th October, 1982. In view of the fact that all these remedies are available to the petitioner, it would not be appropriate for us to examine this question at this stage in our writ jurisdiction [see : Titagarh Paper Mills Co. In view of the fact that all these remedies are available to the petitioner, it would not be appropriate for us to examine this question at this stage in our writ jurisdiction [see : Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa - A. I. R. 1983 (S. C.) 603]. For this reason alone, without going into the merits of the question raised in the petition, we dismiss this petition. ( 3. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioners.