ORDER 1. Appellant, a limited company, is running a factory to manufacture grey cotton fabrics for export. It claimed the benefit of export promotion capital goods scheme providing 'zero duty' under notification 111/95 dated 5.6.1995 and obtained an import licence to import plant and machinery worth Rs. 21 crores. It's licence was valid for 24 months and was later extended up to 6.8.1998. 2. Appellant imported plant and machinery worth Rs. 13 crores in 1995-96 without paying any customs duty. Later it seems it imported remaining machinery for balance Rs. 8 crores and wrote to Asstt. Commissioner I.C.D. Pithampur whether any duty was payable for it under fresh notification dated 16.9.1997 issued by Government of India. 3. He was informed that now under Zero Duty E.P.C.G. scheme, C.V.D. was to be paid at the rate of 10% assessable value plus 0.05% Cess. 4. Appellant felt aggrieved of this and filed W.P. No. 824/98. It was resisted by the customs authorities on the ground that the impugned notification dated 16.9.1997 was issued in modification of the first notification No. 111 of 1995 and that the import licence in question was subject to the customs notification and/or any other condition as contemplated by the Ministry of Finance. It was also contended that the appellant had failed to present the bill of Entries for clearance of goods and the machinery imported, therefore, could not be Instead of awaiting for such assessment against which appellant had an alternative remedy under the Customs Act a writ petition was filed to forestall assessment. 5. Upon this writ court rejected appellant's writ petition declaring it as premature as no assessment was passed by the customs authorities in the matter, and as the appellant could also take to appropriate remedy in such contingency. 6. We find ourselves in complete accord with the view taken by the writ court. 7. It appears that appellant has rushed to this Court questioning the validity of notification dated 16.9.1997 on the plea that it was not applicable to his case without awaiting the view to be taken by the customs authorities in the matter. It could as well be that no duty was levied on appellant. 7. It appears that appellant has rushed to this Court questioning the validity of notification dated 16.9.1997 on the plea that it was not applicable to his case without awaiting the view to be taken by the customs authorities in the matter. It could as well be that no duty was levied on appellant. Even if it was, appellant having efficacious remedy of appeal under the Customs Act, therefore there was no occasion for him to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the court to pre-empt the lawful action expected to be taken by customs authorities. 8. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.