ORDER A.G. Qureshi, J. 1. The petitioners Jayant Vitamins Limited have filed this petition challenging the notice Annexure-A dated 1-10-1992 and order of the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Indore - Annexure-B, by which the final order has been passed on the show cause notice. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri. G.M. Chaphekar, the notice Annexure-A is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the order Annexure-3 passed by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs on 24-6-1993 is also without jurisdiction. According to him when the show cause notice is also without jurisdiction, then the final order in pursuance to the show cause notice is also without jurisdiction and, therefore, this court has power to entertain a writ petition and alternate relief of filing an appeal before the Competent Tribunal is no bar to entertain this petition. 3. We have heard Shri Chaphekar at length and considered the records filed before us. The points raised in this petition may be the points of substance when the case comes before the competent Authority for decision of the matter. In the instant case it is manifest that the show cause notice was not challenged before us being without jurisdiction. That notice was issued in the year 1992 and thereafter the matter was before the Collector, Central Excise and Customs who adjudicated the same. Therefore, after the final adjudication of the matter by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs the petitioner cannot fall back on the show cause notice for seeking admission of this petition before this court. The only course which is left open to the petitioners is to approach the Tribunal which has jurisdiction to hear the appeal and as such an efficacious alternate remedy being available to the petitioner the question of entertaining this petition does not arise as the petition is not for challenging the initial notice, but the final adjudication which has been made on merits. We have also been told that an appeal has already been filed. Therefore, also there is no question of running two parallel proceedings against the same order. 4. In view of the aforesaid this petition is dismissed summarily in view of the fact that the petitioners have already availed the alternate remedy available to them.