B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 8-1-1990 passed by the Assistant collector, Central Excise, Fatehgarh, rejecting the petitioners application for refund, on the ground that his claim is barred by the provisions of Section 11 (B) of the Central Excise and Salt act, 1944. ( 2 ) THE petitioner manufactures chewing tobacco. According to him it is unmanufactured tobacco. By an order dated 5-12-1985, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Farrukhabad classified it as manufactured Branded Chewing Tobacco, dutiable under the Act at the rate prescribed under notification No. 35/79 CE, dated 1st March, 1989. Though this order of the Assistant Collector dated 5-12-1985 was an appealable order, the petitioner did not file an appeal against the same. ( 3 ) IT appears that in certain seizure proceedings, the same very question was raised. According to the petitioner the orders passed in the said seizure proceedings upheld the petitioners contention that the tobacco produced by him is not manufactured branded chewing tobacco and, therefore, not dutiable. Basing upon the said order in seizure proceedings, petitioner applied for refund which was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the claim was barred by Section 11 (B) of the Act. ( 4 ) FIRSTLY, the order refusing refund is itself appealable under the Act. There is no reason why the petitioner should have directly approached this court by way of writ petition. As long as sub-section (4) of Section 11 (B) is on the statute book, and is not declared to be void or invalid, no refund may be ordered except in accordance with Section 11 (B ). The only other situation is where a provision of Act or, a Rule or, a statutory Notification, as the case may be, is struck down with the result that the adjudication/assessment made with reference to such provision/notification also falls to ground. ( 5 ) SECONDLY, so long as the order dated 5-12-1985 stands, it is highly doubtful whether the petitioner can claim refund because in some other proceeding a different view was taken. The proper course for the petitioner would have been to file an appeal against the said order. ( 5 ) SECONDLY, so long as the order dated 5-12-1985 stands, it is highly doubtful whether the petitioner can claim refund because in some other proceeding a different view was taken. The proper course for the petitioner would have been to file an appeal against the said order. Inasmuch as the appellate authority has the power to condone the delay, it may probably be advisable for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority with an appeal and also request him to condone the delay. It is open to the petitioner to satisfy the appellate authority that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time and we are sure that if the appellate authority is so satisfied, it will entertain the appeal according to law. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. .