ORDER A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This is a petition Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It carries on the business of manufacturing twisted bars falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act. This activity is carried on in the factory situated at Bhagirathpura, Indore. The Respondent No. 2, after show-cause notice, passed the order dated 20.7.1993 (Annexure P/8) against the petitioner demanding a sum of Rs. 1,61,947.16 Ps. Under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act and imposed the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- with a direction to confiscate the seized goods with liberty to obtain redemption on payment of fine, of Rs. 1,600/-. This order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is illegally denied the benefit of exemption available through Notification No. 202/88 and 90/88. 3. The respondents have filed the return in oppugnation and taken preliminary objection against the tenability of such writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid order deserves to be demolished in writ jurisdiction. He, however, alternatively submitted that in case it is held that the petitioner is required to resort to an alternate remedy of appeal against the order (Annexure P/8), as impugned in this Writ petition, reasonable time be granted to file the appeal after condonation of delay. 6. Shri Neema submits that this writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner was required to avail of the alternate remedy. According to him, such a remedy is efficacious and the parties facing such orders do resort to such remedies. 7. In (State of U.P. v. Labh Chand), it is held as under: When a Statutory Forum or Tribunal is specially created by a statute for redressal of specified grievances of persons on certain matters, the High Court should not normally permit such persons to ventilate their specified grievances before it by entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is a legal petition which is too well settled. 8. 8. The counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any proper reason as to why the recourse to appeal was not taken. It is, therefore, necessary to grant liberty to the petitioner to resort to the remedy of appeal, as was available under the relevant Act. 9. As regards the prayer for limitation, it is seen that the order is dated 20.7.1993/5.8.1993. The petition was filed on 23.11.1993. It was admitted on 3.12.1993 with interim order of stay. In view of the pendency of the petition after admission in this Court, it is proper to allow the petitioner reasonable time to resort to alternate remedy of appeal. It is admitted that contention stated in para 19 of the petition about absence of remedy is incorrect. 10. In the result, this petition is disposed of with the directions as under: a) Merits of the matter in view of the alternate remedy are not touched. The petitioner, however is granted liberty to file an appropriate appeal against the order dated 20.7.1993/5.8.1993 (Annexure P/8) by 18.09.95. If the appeal is filed by this date, the respondents shall stand precluded from opposing such appeal on the ground of bar of limitation. b) The interim order of stay passed by this Court on 3.12.1993 shall remain operative till 18.09.1995 or till presentation of appeal which ever event may be earlier in point of time. c) Parties are left to bear their own costs of this petition as incurred. Security deposit shall be refunded after due verification. CC today on payment of usual charges.