JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks the following relief : (i) a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.11.2000 issued on 13.12.2000 and served on 29.12.2000 passed by the Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi read with order dated 4.2.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad. (ii) a writ of Mandamus directing the Commissioner to adjudicate the case afresh correctly computing the duty liability or to direct the Hon’ble Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh considering all the contentions taken in the memo of appeal and urged during the course of hearing. (iii) any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) and to award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case-giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of tents and parts thereof falling under Chapter 6306 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and duly registered under the Central Excise Department. The Central Preventive Officers of the Central Excise Kanpur visited the factory of the petitioner on 28.4.1998 and on physical verification of the stock detected a shortage of 40 tents private MK-3 complete and 1607 tents arctic small complete against the recorded balance as on 28.4.1998 in the prescribed records. For the aforesaid clandestine removal of the goods, the petitioner deposited the duty of Rs. 3,78,487/-. The officers also noticed from the resumed records and two letters dated 8.4.1998 and 27.4.1998 that certain damaged goods were replaced without payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,999.68, which according to the petitioner was also paid without any dispute. However a demand of Rs. 4,84,998/- was raised on the basis of GRs resumed from the possession of one Shri Akhilesh Shukla a Transport Commission Agent. The petitioner tried to co-relate the said GRs with the invoices issued by it, but the co-relation was not accepted. A further demand of Rs. 2,14,478.00 was raised on the basis of the note-book resumed from the gate keeper and the explanation given by the petitioner was rejected. In this way, total demand of Rs.10, 90,914.36 was raised and penalty of the equal amount of Rs. A further demand of Rs. 2,14,478.00 was raised on the basis of the note-book resumed from the gate keeper and the explanation given by the petitioner was rejected. In this way, total demand of Rs.10, 90,914.36 was raised and penalty of the equal amount of Rs. 10,80,914.36 was also levied under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as “Excise Act”) and the interest has also been demanded under Section 11-AB of the Excise Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise, the petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order confirmed the demand towards duty but reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 2.5 lacs. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that against the impugned order of the Tribunal, petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of reference under Section 35-H of the Excise Act and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He submitted that the relief, which the petitioner is seeking in the present petition, can also be availed in the reference, but instead of filing reference application, present writ petition has been filed, which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has decided the appeal without considering the submissions of the petitioner, which amounts to violation of natural justice, and, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the parties. 7. On 30.3.2001, time has been granted to the Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit and the writ petition was directed to be listed for admission. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned several times either on the illness of Sri A.P. Mathur, Advocate or on the adjournment sought by him. The writ petition has not been admitted till date. 8. Admittedly, against the order of the Tribunal, reference lies under Section 35-H of the Excise Act. Remedy, which the petitioner is seeking in the writ petition can also be availed in the reference application. No special circumstances have been stated for bypassing the filing of the reference application and filing the writ petition. 8. Admittedly, against the order of the Tribunal, reference lies under Section 35-H of the Excise Act. Remedy, which the petitioner is seeking in the writ petition can also be availed in the reference application. No special circumstances have been stated for bypassing the filing of the reference application and filing the writ petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that Tribunal has decided the appeal without giving opportunity of hearing in violation of principles of natural justice. The claim of the petitioner is that various submissions of the petitioner have not been considered by the Tribunal amounts to violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted. Thus, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 9. In a recent decision in the case of Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 NTN (Vol. 31), 249, Apex Court has considered in detail the issue relating to the entertainment of the writ petitions when alternative remedy is available. Apex Court held as follows : “Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income Tax Investigation Commission and others, AIR 1954 SC 207 ; Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and others, AIR 1955 SC 425 ; Union of India v. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882 ; State of U.P. and others v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 ; and M/s K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089 , held that article 226 of the Constitution confers on all the High Courts a very wide power in the matter of issuing writs. However, the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. Another Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Bhailal Bhai etc., AIR 1964 SC 1006 , held that the remedy provided in a writ jurisdiction is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil Court or to deny defence legitimately open in such actions. The power to give relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary power. Similar view has been reiterated in N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar and others, AIR 1959 SC 422 ; Municipal Council, Khurai and another v. Kamal Kumar and another, AIR 1988 SC 1321; Siliguri Municipality and others v. Amalendu Das and others, AIR 1984 SC 653 ; S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan and others, AIR 1988 SC 616 ; R.S.R.T.C. and another v. Krishna Kant and others, AIR 1995 SC 1715 ; Kerala State electricity Board and another v. Kurien E. Kalathil and others, AIR 2000 SC 2573 ; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and others, 2000 (7) SCC 695 ; and L.L. Sudhakar Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2001 (6) SCC 634 ; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2001 (8) SCC 509 ; Pratap Singh and another v. State of Haryana, 2002 (7) SCC 484 and G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and others, 2003 (1) SCC 72 . In Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2003 (2) SCC 107 , this Court held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and the Court must consider the pros and cons of the case and then may interfere if it comes to the conclusion that the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192 ; Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., AIR 1985 SC 330 ; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, AIR 1999 SC 294 ; Shivgonda Anna Patil and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1999 SC 22 81 ; C.A. Abraham v. I.T.O. Kottayam and others, AIR 1961 SC 609 ; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and another, AIR 1983 SC 603 ; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and others, AIR 1999 SC 22 ; Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1999 SC 74 ; Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, 1999 (1) SCC 209 and Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and others, 2001 (6) SCC 569 , this Court held that there hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. If, as was noted in Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1985 SC 1147 the appeal is from “Caeser to Ceaser’s wife” the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. There are two well recognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. First is when the proceedings are taken before the forum under a provision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved hereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course. Secondly, the doctrine has no application when the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. Secondly, the doctrine has no application when the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. We may add that where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can entertain a writ petition. (emphasis provided) The above position was recently highlighted in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and another, (2005)8 SCC 264 .” 10. In the case of U.P. Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and another, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 264 . (para 11 to 24), Apex Court has set aside the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition on the ground that the High Court should not entertain the writ petition when the statutory remedy was available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 unless exceptional circumstances are made out. 11. In the case of Union of India and another v. M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd., Balrampur and another, 2003 UPTC 982, order of the Tribunal was dated 5.12.2001 and the writ petition was entertained in the year 2002 but on the objection being raised by the learned Standing Counsel, this Court on 23.5.2003 has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. This Court held that against the order of the Tribunal, reference lies, thus, writ petition is not maintainable. In the case of Union of India v. Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Northern Bench), New Delhi and another decided on 18.7.2006, writ petition was entertained in the year 2001 and the writ petition was dismissed on 18.7.2006 on the ground of alternative remedy. In the result, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. ———