JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act')- It also impugnes the legality of the order dated 16-5-1991 (Annexure -1) passed u/s 142 of the Act and the order dated 8-3-1991 (Annexure-19) made under Sections 59 and 72 of the Act. 2. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of specialised basic refractory bricks, fire bricks and allied products in its factory located at Lathikata in the district of Sundargarh. For the purpose of manufacturing the said products it imports various raw materials on consignments through different ports which are ultimately transported to its factory. The petitioner is permitted to house those consignments in a private warehouse licenced u/s 58 of the Act and after payment of customs duty lifts the raw materials from the warehouse as and when necessary. It is the allegation of the petitioner that Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs, opposite party No. 1 illegally issued demand of recovery of duty relating to four different consignments u/s 142 of the Act in his order dated 16-5-1991 at Annexure-1. The further allegation of the petitioner is that despite the fact that it wanted to abandon the goods u/s 23(2) of the Act the said Assistant Collector in his order dated 8-3-1991 at Annexure-19 illegally rejected the said claim and wrongly held that duty is payable thereon. 3. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit in the case justifying the reason for passing the impugned orders. 4. Let us first consider the contention of Shri Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner that Sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Act is ultra vires Article 265 of the Constitution of India. It has first to be observed that there is no pleading in the writ petition for the challenge to the validity of the provision in question in the manner in which it should have been done. The petitioner has not laid any foundation in this regard in the petition. It is trite law that presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of a statute. The petitioner has not laid any foundation in this regard in the petition. It is trite law that presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of a statute. The burden of proving the facts which are necessary for constitutional invalidity is upon the person who assails the constitutionality. Sub-section (1) of Section 61 of the Act allows a period of one year/three months for keeping the warehoused goods in the warehouse in which they are deposited or in any warehouse to which they may be removed. Sub-section (2) of Section 61 with which we are concerned states that if any warehoused goods remain in a warehouse beyond the period stipulated or granted by way of extension by the competent authority, interest at such rate not exceeding 18 per cent per annum shall be payable on the amount of duty on the warehoused goods for the period commencing from the expiry of the period stipulated or ordered till the date of clearance of the goods from the warehouse. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to indicate as to how the charge of the interest contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Act impinges Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The reason for charging interest on the amount of duty on the warehoused goods retained beyond the permissible time is to impel the licensee to remove the goods as expeditiously as possible within the time granted so that he would not be burdened with the liability of payment of interest. Section 60 of the Act permits deposit of goods in the licensed ware-house without payment of duty. The payment of duty thus being dependent upon removal of goods, the quicker the removal of goods, the sooner the payment of duty which is obviously in the interest of Revenue. The charge of the interest under Sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Act is thus a wholesome principle and in our considered opinion it does not in any way infringe Article 265 of the Constitution of India. 5. Let us next examine the validity of the order dated 16-5-1991 at Annexure-1. It is an order made u/s 142 of the Act with regard to four consignments of the raw materials (DBM) for which four separate demands for recovery of levy etc. have been made. Shri Das has a two pronged attack to the said order. 5. Let us next examine the validity of the order dated 16-5-1991 at Annexure-1. It is an order made u/s 142 of the Act with regard to four consignments of the raw materials (DBM) for which four separate demands for recovery of levy etc. have been made. Shri Das has a two pronged attack to the said order. The first ground of attack is that the demands in respect of two items (two consignments) being nonexistent, they having been set aside in appeal, the entire demand in Annexure-1 is vitiated in law. The second basis of a attack is on the tenability of each of the four demands mentioned in the order. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order in entirety vitiated became of two items (two consignments) are non-existent. The reason for rejecting the said contention is simple. The principle that the decision of an authority or Tribunal could be vitiated if some of the reasons in support of the decision turn out to be unsustainable applies to cases in which the conclusion is reached on subjective satisfaction of the authority of Tribunal because in such cases, it would be difficult for a superior Court to find out which of the reasons brought about such satisfaction. But in a case where the decision is based on objective facts and evidence and if it is found that some of the reasons are valid and some are irrelevant or unsustainable, a Superior Court would not interfere because the decision can be upheld-on the basis of valid reasons. In the case at hand, demand for recovery of duty and interest has been raised separately with regard to four consignments of raw materials. Each of the demand mentioned in the order at Annexure-1 is separate, distinct and is not dependent on the other. Even if demand in respect of two consignments cannot be supported the demand in respect of the remaining consignments mentioned in the order does not ipso facto become invalid. As the order is based on objective facts it is separable and in respect of valid demands it can be sustained and the order with regard to the remaining invalid demand can be declared illegal and unenforceable. 6. Let us now examine whether the four items referred to in Annexure-1 are sustainable in law. As the order is based on objective facts it is separable and in respect of valid demands it can be sustained and the order with regard to the remaining invalid demand can be declared illegal and unenforceable. 6. Let us now examine whether the four items referred to in Annexure-1 are sustainable in law. Item No. 1 relates to invoice No. 23/70, dated 18-9-1987 in respect of the consignments covered thereunder. Item No. 2 relates to Invoice No. 21/79, dated 24-3-1987 for the consignments covered thereunder. It is the contention of the petitioner that assessment in respect of both the aforesaid items 1 and 2 were set aside in appeal by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) by the orders at Annexures 3 and 4 despite the direction of the appellate authority for de nova assessment, no fresh assessment has yet been made and as such, the demand for recovery made by the Assistant Collector in Annexure-1 with regard to items 1 and 2 is unsustainable. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department contended that Annexures 3 and 4 do not refer to assessment of invoice No. 23/70 and invoice No. 21/79. We are not in a position to accept this contention of the Revenue. The petitioner in paragraphs 4(i) and 4(j) of the writ petition has specifically stated that assessments made by the Assistant Collector in respect of invoice Nos. 23/70 and 21/79 have been set aside in appeal by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) who directed de novo assessment and no fresh order of assessment has yet been made. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue this averment of the petitioner has not been specifically denied. On the contrary, it has been stated that the averments made in paragraphs 4(i) and 4(j) of the writ petition are matters of record and the said orders (meaning Annexures 3 and 4) were never communicated to the Assistant Collector. On the contrary, it has been stated that the averments made in paragraphs 4(i) and 4(j) of the writ petition are matters of record and the said orders (meaning Annexures 3 and 4) were never communicated to the Assistant Collector. This denial in the counter affidavit being vague and in the face of the orders at Annexures 3 and 4 we have no hesitation to hold that the assessments made in respect of the invoice No. 23/70 (item No. 1) and invoice No. 21/79 (item No. 2) have been set aside by the appellate authority and the Assistant Collector could not have raised the demand for recovery of duty in respect of those two items in Annexure. Item No. 3 relates to liability of the petitioner to pay duty on the quantity of 2017.763 m.t. of DBM. The case of the petitioner is that it cleared only 2000 m.t. of DBM by virtue of the bill of entry for home consumption by paying customs duty and the remaining 17.763 m.t. of D.B.M. was not physically available to be lifted nor was it taken for home consumption and as such, there is no legal basis to pay duty in respect of the entire 2017.763 m.t. of D.B.M. Demand in respect of 17.763 m.t. of D.B.M. was raised against the petitioner by order dated 17-10-1989 at Annexure-G followed by another order at Annexure-1. The said order of assessment is appealable. As the demand for recovery u/s 142 in Annexure 1 also includes Item No. 3, it is also separately appealable. Item No. 4 is in respect of import of 3,000 m.t. of 3-A Grade DBM. The case of the petitioner is that as the Assistant Collector enhanced the value of the said consignment, it preferred appeal No. 1590/90 before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta and the appellate authority after setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector held 5,85,000 Dollars to be the correct transaction value and against the said order of the appellate authority, the Assistant Collector has filed appeal before the CEGAT. It appears that the said order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is at Annexure-9 who held that the FOB value of 5,85,000/- Dollars to be the correct transaction value for the purpose of assessment having recorded the said finding, he has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. It appears that the said order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is at Annexure-9 who held that the FOB value of 5,85,000/- Dollars to be the correct transaction value for the purpose of assessment having recorded the said finding, he has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. Thus, the order of the Assistant Collector having been set aside in appeal and the Revenue having failed to produce any order of the CEGAT in the matter, we are of the opinion that the demand for recovery of duty with regard to Item No. 4 cannot be upheld. 7. From the aforesaid it is clear that the order at Annexure4 with regard to items 1, 2 and 4 cannot be supported in law. We accordingly set aside the order in respect of the aforesaid three items. With regard to item No. 3 mentioned in Annexure 1, we are of the opinion that the assessment covering the said item is appealable and the petitioner should avail the alternative remedy of filing appeal in the matter u/s 128 of the Act. Let us lastly examine the validity of the order dated 8-3-1991 (Annexure 19) passed by the Assistant Collector who has rejected the claim of the petitioner for abandonment of consignment referred to therein and has directed the petitioner to discharge the duty liability in terms of Section 72 and 59 of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that although it wanted to abandon the goods u/s 23(2) of the Act, the Assistant Collector rejected the claim for abandonment without any justifiable reason. Whether the petitioner had valid ground for abandonment of the goods depends upon various facts and circumstances. The said order Annexure 19 is available to be challenged in appeal. Since an alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner by way of appeal, we do not like to examine the merit of the claim made by the petitioner. 8. In the result, the writ application is allowed in part. The order at Annexure-1 so far as it relates to demand Nos, 1, 2 and 4 is quashed. We gives liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the order in respect of demand No. 3, mentioned in Annexure 1 as well as the order at Annexure 19 within one month from today. The order at Annexure-1 so far as it relates to demand Nos, 1, 2 and 4 is quashed. We gives liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the order in respect of demand No. 3, mentioned in Annexure 1 as well as the order at Annexure 19 within one month from today. If no appeal is filed within one month from today, the order in respect of demand No. 3 mentioned in Annexure 1 and the order at Annexure 19 shall stand confirmed. In case the petitioner filed appeal within the time granted, the appellate authority would do well in disposing of the same within three months from the date of filing of the same and there shall be stay of operation of the orders appealed against till disposal of the appeal. We make this order because this court on 12-6-1991 directed stay of Annexure 1 subject to the petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- which the petitioner complied with as is evident from the order passed by this court on 19-6-1991 in Misc. Case No. 3294 of 1991. There shall be no order as to costs. G.B. Patnik, J. 9. I agree.