JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Company M/s. Choksi Platinum, a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacturing of Platinum wit by way of instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks direction to quash notice Ex.5 dated 21.11.1990 whereby it has been called upon to show cause and explain to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise & Customs Division, Udaipur as to how central excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,09,683.12 not paid on Silver Palladium should be not recovered under Section 11-A of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. By communication Ex. 6 dated 6.12.1990 petitioner Company has been informed that its product Aged(70:30) has been classified under Chapter Heading 7101.90 instead of 7101.60. By the said communication the classification list has been returned to the Company for rectification of duty chargeable at the rate of 15% adv. on clearance of Silver alloys, Silver Pd etc. 2. The petitioner Company has challenged the notice Annexure 5 & 6 inter alia on the ground that once the classification list showing the item indispute to be classified under Head 71.01 sub head 7101.60 exempted under notice dated 10.2.1986 having been approved by the Assistant Collector can not be altered in disregard to Rule 173B except in a case where it becomes essential because of the situations mentioned in Rule 173-B(4) and that too only to the extent which is permissible limit. It is submitted that since there was no condition for permitting alteration in so far as items described as strips, wires, sheets, plates and foils of Silver are concerned, no alteration in the already approved classification list was permissible under Rule 173-B. 3. Mr. Pankaj Bohra learned counsel appearing for the Department submits that the instant writ petition against the show cause notice is not maintainable. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court Dr. Shashank Bhalchandra Subhedar v. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 268 (S.C.) . In our view there is substance in the objection raised by the learned counsel. The brief order of the Apex Court is extracted as follows: "We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court which dismissed the writ petition filed challenging the show cause notice that was issued. In our view there is substance in the objection raised by the learned counsel. The brief order of the Apex Court is extracted as follows: "We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court which dismissed the writ petition filed challenging the show cause notice that was issued. The High Court should not have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the show cause notice issued under the Customs Act. The more appropriate remedy for the person aggrieved is to file a reply to the show cause and take recourse to the proceedings available under the Act. The observations of the High Court will not stand in the way of petitioners. The Special Leave petitions stand dismissed accordingly." 4. Dealing with the contention regarding change in the classification list, it is submitted by Mr. Bohra learned counsel for the Department that the Assistant Collector had inherent powers to review the approved classification list of the petitioner as it was wrongly approved. In our view there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Department. Withdrawal of approval does not amount to review by the same officer and therefore such action if taken with reference to section 11-A of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 can not be held to be without jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Elson Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 572 (S.C.) observed that the Excise authorities are not estopped from taking a view different than in the approved classification list. It was further held that no estoppel against law can be pleaded.Consequently, we find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to cost.Writ Petition dismissed. *******