ORDER N.K. Jain, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the respondents to treat the Bill of Entry No. 307, dated 29-6-1996 as having been filed for the purpose of home consumption and for grant of consequential relief i.e., refund of the additional import duties collected from the petitioner on the basis of post-budget duties. 2. The petitioner Company is engaged in the manufacture of phar-maceuticals (I.V. Fluids). For the purpose of furthering their manufacturing activity the petitioner filed a yellow Bill of Entry No. 307 at ICB, Pithampur on 29-6-1996 for clearance of one 'Automatic Aseptic Form Fill Seal Machine for primary packaging of Parenteral Fluids injectable liquids or any other phar-maceuticals or medicinal liquids', falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 8422.30 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and one set of spare parts (Standard SVP) falling under sub-heading No. 8422.90 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 collectively valued at US $ 11,26,348.23 (C & F, Bombay). The consignment was shipped by Container No. LMCU-070068/9 of Ignazia Messina and Co., shipping line from port of lading: LASPEZIA under Bill of Lading No. 12, dated 26-5-1996. On the date of filing the Bill of Entry, AAFFS Machine was chargeable to concessional Customs duty @ 15% ad valorem in terms of Notification No. 47/95-Cus., dated 16-3-1995 and Additional Duty of Customs under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 @ 10% ad valorem while the said rates for spare parts (Standard SVP) was 25% ad valorem under Notification No. 49/95-Cus., dated 16-3-1995 and @ 15% ad valorem respectively. Total duty assessable on that day worked out to be Rs. 1,06,52,539/-. 3. The Container No. LMCU-070068/9 arrived at ICD, Pithampur on 25-7-1996 and Sub-Manifest Transhipment Permit (SMTP) No. 305, dated 17-7-1996 issued by Bombay Customs Container Cell was produced to the Customs at ICD, Pithampur on 26-7-1996. 4. In the meanwhile the Union Budget was presented on 23-7-1996 when the exemption Notification Nos. 47/95-Cus. and 49/95-Cus. both dated 16-3-1995 were rescinded by Notification No. 47/96-Cus., dated 23-7-1996. 4. In the meanwhile the Union Budget was presented on 23-7-1996 when the exemption Notification Nos. 47/95-Cus. and 49/95-Cus. both dated 16-3-1995 were rescinded by Notification No. 47/96-Cus., dated 23-7-1996. Post Budget rate of duty on the above imported consignment in the case of yellow Bill of Entry for warehousing for the practical purpose applicable during ex-bonding for home consumption came to basic Customs Duty @ 25% ad valorem vide Customs Notification No. 46/96 and 36/96, both dated 23-7-1996. Special Customs Duty @ 2% ad valorem and Additional Customs Duty under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 @ 10% and 15% for AAFFS Machine and spare parts respectively, which incidently became higher than the rate of duties applicable at pre-budget period. 5. The petitioner under their letter dated 29-7-1996 filed at ICD, Pithampur on 30-7-1996 requested for substituting the yellow Bill of Entry No. 307, dated 29-6-1996 for warehouse by white Bill of Entry for home consumption on the grounds that in terms of Public Notice No. 101 /96, dated 5-6-1996 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai imported plant and machinery shall not be allowed to be warehoused in a Public Bonded Warehouse. The request of the petitioner was examined by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, ICD, Pithampur and it was found that neither there was any statutory provisions nor was there any instructions/public notice issued from Indore Commissionerate for disallowance of warehousing of machines. The yellow Bill of Entry for warehouse was, therefore, found to have been correctly allowed to be filed by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Pithampur by his letter dated 30-7-1996 (Annexure D) rejected the petitioner's representation and levied them with the import duties on the basis of post-budget rates treating the Bill of Entry No. 307, dated 29-6-1996 as having been filed for warehousing not for home consumption. 7. The petitioner have sought to impugn the letter (Annexure D) as also the assessment made on the basis of post-budget duties on the grounds enumerated in para 6 of the petition. As against it, the respondents have filed return in oppugnation of the petition and taken preliminary objection as to the tenability of the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal. 8. As against it, the respondents have filed return in oppugnation of the petition and taken preliminary objection as to the tenability of the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal. 8. I have heard Counsel for the parties on the question of tenability of the petition on the linchpin of the availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal. 9. Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act by an officer of Customs lower in rank than a Collector of Customs, may appeal to the Collector (Appeals) within 3 months from the date of communication to him of such decision or order. It is stated at bar that now the appellate authority has been designated as Commissioner (Appeals) It is thus clear that the impugned assessment made under the provisions of the Act of 1962 can be challenged in appeal under Section 128 of the Act. It is well settled that where alternative remedy by way of appeal is available, recourse to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not permissible. In Labchand's case ( AIR 1994 SC 764 ) Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held : "When a statutory forum or Tribunal is specially created by a statutes 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 position which is too well settled." 10. It was, however, contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that what is under challenge in this petition is not only the assessment but also the letter (Annexure D) where by the petitioner's representation has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Pithampur. That, however, does not make any difference inasmuch as the petitioner will be free to assail the said letter while impugning the assessment. As regards the question of limitation, learned Counsel for the respondents gracefully conceded that the appeal if filed within such period as may be prescribed in this behalf by this Court, the Respondent-Department shall not oppose the same on the question of limitation. 11. As regards the question of limitation, learned Counsel for the respondents gracefully conceded that the appeal if filed within such period as may be prescribed in this behalf by this Court, the Respondent-Department shall not oppose the same on the question of limitation. 11. In the result, I Without touching the merits of the petition, dispose Of the same with the direction that the petitioner may file appropriate appeal against the order impugned within two months from today. If appeal is preferred within this period, the respondent shall not oppose the appeal on the ground of bar of limitation. In such appeal it will be open for the petitioner-to assail the letter (Annexure D) also. Further, in case the petitioner suffers any adverse decision in the appeal/he shall be free to resort to such remedy as may be available to him in law. With these observations this petition stands disposed of but without any order as to costs.