Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- In all the three writ petitions, the writ petitioners and the respondents herein, are one and the same and the subject matter of the relief sought for by the petitioners in each petition are one and the same. Hence, a common order is delivered in the above writ petitions. 2.In all these 3 writ petitions the petitioner by name M/s Madura Coats Limited represented by its Assistant Logistics Manager, Excise, Aladiyur, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District has filed above writ petitions invoking Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for the relief sought for questioning the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, dated 15-11-92. In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, the petitioners have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the writ petitions and requested this Court to allow the three writ petitions. 3. On the other hand, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after another and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petitions for want of merits. 4.The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners together with the arguments of the learned counsel for the various respondents are heard. 5.Point for consideration is to whether there are any valid grounds to allow the writ petitions or not ? 6.I have gone through the material documents available on record, particularly with regard to the contents of the affidavits, contents of the counter affidavit, together with the impugned order passed by the respondent. I have also gone through the materials available in the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the petitioner. 7.Having seen the entire materials available on record, the salient features of the present case on hand are as follows :The petitioner is manufacturer of sewing threads of cotton, Nylon, Polyester and other varieties marketed under the brand name of coats, threads. Since the particular varieties of man-made filaments with specified physical qualities are produced in limited quantities in India, the petitioner company imports such specified man-made filaments for their sewing threads. For these imported man-made filaments, appropriate customs duty and additional custom duty in lieu of Excise duty are levied and paid. Since the particular varieties of man-made filaments with specified physical qualities are produced in limited quantities in India, the petitioner company imports such specified man-made filaments for their sewing threads. For these imported man-made filaments, appropriate customs duty and additional custom duty in lieu of Excise duty are levied and paid. Besides the conversion of Sewing Threads, such specified imported man-made filaments are also used in the manufacture of Tyre Cord Fabrics and Chaffers/Duck Fabrics and at the Madurai Mills of the petitioner company such fabrics are made. 8.It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner company by a letter dated 11-3-1986 sought the advise of the respondents regarding the appropriate classification of the various products manufactured by them under the new Tariff Act. In that letter the petitioner company mentioning the raw materials used in the manufacture, the process of manufacture and the various end uses of the various products, requested for the advise of the department concerning the proper classification of the manufactured products. 9.It is the further case of the petitioner that in this letter the Nylon, Polyester and Polypropylene sewing threads made out of duty paid indigenous and imported filament yarns had been duly mentioned. The Central Excise authorities of Madurai Collectorate initially taking the view that sewing threads are known in the market differently from yarns and they are different products, demanded excise duty again, even though they are made out of duty paid yarns. Therefore the petitioner had filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P. Nos. 13393, 13397, 13398 of 1986. The Central Excise authorities of Madurai Collectorate initially taking the view that sewing threads are known in the market differently from yarns and they are different products, demanded excise duty again, even though they are made out of duty paid yarns. Therefore the petitioner had filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P. Nos. 13393, 13397, 13398 of 1986. It is further case of the petitioner that as per the approved classification clearing of all man-made sewing threads is must and it is the further case of the petitioner that in June, 1992, the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai taking the view that the exemption Notification 53/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 do not exempt incidence of excise duty on such of the sewing threads made out of imported man-made filament yarns, as these imported yarns have not suffered incidence of excise duty and only Additional Customs Duty is not mentioned issued show cause notice depicting that the petitioner company had wilfully suppressed and misrepresented the manufacture of Nylon sewing threads out of imported yarns to evade payment of excise duty and hence they are liable to be penalised and they should pay the excise duty retrospectively from 1-6-1987 up to 31-3-1992. It is the further case of the petitioner that an order passed by the respondent dated 11-7-1993 is not valid and the same may be set aside. 10.The salient features of the computer affidavit filed by the respondents are as follows : It is stated that the contention of the petitioner levying duty retrospectively is not correct. What the adjudicating authority seek to do is recovering the duty that is not paid under Section 11A of the Act. The adjudicating authority is empowered to demand duty that is not paid under the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. In the case of the order-in-original that is impugned in W.P. No. 19201 of 1992, the assessee misdeclared the sewing thread as if it was made out of excise duty paid yarn in terms of Notification 53/91. The petitioner in W.P. No. 19201 of 1992 had in their classification list, which was approved on 19-8-1987, declared that thread manufactured by them is made from duty paid yarn. But it was found that they manufactured sewing thread out of imported yarn also wherein no excise duty has been paid and the respondent has invoked the provision to Section 11A and demanded duty. But it was found that they manufactured sewing thread out of imported yarn also wherein no excise duty has been paid and the respondent has invoked the provision to Section 11A and demanded duty. Therefore the demand is valid within law and the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the same. 11.On behalf of the respondents it is also argued that the legal remedy open under law aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents, all the three petitioners have to prefer an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) hereinafter referred to 'CEGAT'. If there, is any grievance in the order passed by the authority (CEGAT), the petitioners are entitled to agitate their remedy open to them by way of filing writ petition. But instead of doing so, straightaway the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions. 12.The provisions of law is very clear that the petitioners are entitled to seek the relief aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the respondent by way of appeal before the CEGAT and such legal course has not been exhausted by the petitioners. When such legal course is not exhausted by the petitioners, I am of the clear view that the petitioners are not entitled to invoke Article 226 of the Indian Constitution and no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners and the point is answered against the writ petitioners. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon following decisions, in support of his contention : (1) (Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd.v.Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. (2) (J.K. Synthetics Ltd.v.Union of India) (3) (Collector of Central Excise,Patnav.Usha Martin Industries (4) (Collector of Central Excise, Jaipurv.Banswara Syntex Ltd. The ruling relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners are not applicable to the case of the petitioners in view of the fact that the petitioners did not exhaust the legal remedy open under law by way of an appeal before the CEGAT. These rulings are helpful to the petitioners, provided if the petitioner exhausted the legal remedy open under law by way of appeal and the appellate order is challenged by the petitioners, but the petitioners never sought for the relief by way of appeal and therefore I am of the clear view, that the above rulings are not helpful to the petitioners. On behalf of the petitioners written arguments are filed but these written arguments cannot be considered invoking Article 226 of the Constitution by way of writ unless the petitioners exhausted the legal remedy open under law by way of appeal before CEGAT. On that ground also I am of the clear view that the written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioners are in no way helpful to the petitioners and the relief can be granted if the petitioner exhausted the remedy open under law by way of appeal before CEGAT. 14.In the result, all the three writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Interim order granted in favour of the writ petitioners in each petition in W.M.P. Nos. 27642 and 27643 of 1992, 9584 and 30038 of 1993 respectively on 2-12-1992, 31-3-1993 and 26-10-1993 are withdrawn with immediate effect. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 17935 of 1993 is closed.