RAJES KUMAR, J. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks the following relief. (i) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the part of the final order No. 951/2000-B dated 12-5-2000 served on 18-7-2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal read with orders dated 2-9-1999 and 29-6-1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Ghaziabad and the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Noida respectively in respect of confirming the demand of duty. (ii) To issue any other suitable, writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the certifications dated 31-3-1997 and 5-9-1997 as valid certificates under Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28-8-1995. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) 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 machines and parts thereof, structures reservoirs, tanks and similar containers etc. falling under Chapter 84 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "tariff Act") respectively. In terms of notification No. 108/95- CE dated 28-8-1995 all the goods falling under the Schedule to the Tariff Act are completely exempt from the Central Excise duty, if the same are supplied to the United Nations or an International Organization for their official use or to the project financed by the said United Nations or International Organization and approved by the Government of India, provided that before the clearance of the said goods, the manufacturer produces before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, a certificate from the United Nations or an International Organization to this effect. The petitioner on the strength of the certificates dated 31-3- 1997 and 5-9-1997 issued by the project authority submitted before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, cleared the goods during the month of September, 1997 to November, 1997 from its factory to M/s. Punjab Energy Development Agency on behalf of M/s. Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited without payment of duty claimed to be exempted under Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28-8- 1995. The project being implemented was funded by the World Bank and duly approved by the Government of India. 3. The project being implemented was funded by the World Bank and duly approved by the Government of India. 3. Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-II, NOIDA issued a show cause notice dated 21-1- 1998 to show cause why the Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 3,32,059/- be not recovered and why the penalty be not imposed under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the aforesaid clearance. On the receipt of the reply, demand was confirmed on the ground that the requisite certificate provided under the Notification was not furnished. Being aggrieved by the adjudication order, petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed, vide order dated 2-9- 1999. Petitioner further filed appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Though, against the impugned order there was statutory remedy by way of reference under Section 35-H of the Act, still the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 11-10-2000. The writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 12-10-2000. On 12-10-2000, the Court has passed the order "on the request of Sri A. P. Mathur, Advocate, list in ordinary course". Thereafter, on several occasions the case has been adjourned either on the illness slip or on the request of Sri A. P. Mathur. At no point of time, the Court has entertained the petition or asked the learned Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit, though, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petition has neither been entertained by the Court nor it has been admitted till date. On 1-12-2006, when the matter came up for consideration, Sri A. K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel submitted that writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as, there was an alternative remedy by way of reference under Section 35-H of the Act and the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and the question involved in the present writ petition relates to the interpretation of the Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28-8-1995. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and the question involved in the present writ petition relates to the interpretation of the Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28-8-1995. He further submitted that the limitation for filing the reference application has been expired and this Court has no power to condone the delay as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Central Excise Reference Application No. (4) of 2001, Commissioner of Central Excise v. Salora Industrial Limited, decided on 13-9-2005. Thus, petitioner will become remediless and will suffer irreparable loss. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have given my anxious consideration to the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. Admittedly, against the order of the Tribunal, there was a remedy by way of reference under Section 35-H of the Act. Reference was to be filed within 180 days from the date of the receipt of the order. Instead of filing reference, petitioner has chosen to file present writ petition in the year, 2000. Writ Petition came up for consideration before this Court on 2-10- 2000. On that date instead of arguing the matter learned Counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to list the matter in ordinary course. Thereafter the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 10-9-2003 and thereafter the matter was listed number of times, but same was adjourned either on the illness slip of Sri A. P. Mathur, Advocate, or on his request. The petition has never been entertained or admitted at any stage. Thus, in case, if the petitioner has chosen to file writ petition instead of availing the statutory remedy by way of reference, it is the fault of the petitioner and the petitioner can only be held responsible. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not able to show that the relief, which the petitioner is seeking in the writ petition, could not be sought in the reference proceeding. 7. In a recent decision in the case of Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 2006 (3) JCLR 678 (SC) : 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. 7. In a recent decision in the case of Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 2006 (3) JCLR 678 (SC) : 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 & Ors. , AIR 1954 SC 207 ; Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah & Ors. , AIR 1955 SC 425 ; Union of India v. T. R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882 ; State of U. P. & Ors. 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 & Anr. 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 & Anr. 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 & Ors. , AIR 1959 SC 422 ; Municipal Council, Khurai & Anr. v. Kamal Kumar & Anr. , AIR 1988 SC 1321; Siliguri Municipality & Ors. v. Amalendu Das & Ors. , AIR 1984 SC 653 ; S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan & Ors. , AIR 1988 SC 616 ; R. S. R. T. C. & Anr. v. Krishna Kant & Ors. , 1995 (2) JCLR 17 (SC) : AIR 1995 SC 1715 ; Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Kurien E. Kalathil & Ors. , AIR 2000 SC 2573 ; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan & Ors. , 2001 (1) JCLR 1 (SC) : 2000 (7) SCC 695 and L. L. Sudhakar Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. , 2001 (6) SCC 634 ; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , 2001 (8) SC 509; Pratap Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, 2002 (7) SCC 484 and G. K. N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. , 2003 (1) SCC 72 . v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , 2001 (8) SC 509; Pratap Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, 2002 (7) SCC 484 and G. K. N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. , 2003 (1) SCC 72 . In Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , 2003 (1) JCLR 727 (SC) : 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 & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , 1999 (2) JCLR 62 (SC) : AIR 1999 SC 22 81 ; C. A. Abraham v. I. T. O. , Kottayam & Ors. , AIR 1961 SC 609 ; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Anr. , AIR 1983 SC 603 ; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors. , AIR 1999 SC 22 ; Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , AIR 1999 SC 74 ; Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, 1999 (1) SCC 209 and Punjab Natiional Bank v. O. C. Krishnan & Ors. , 2002 (1) JCLR 102 (SC) : 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 & Ors. , AIR 1985 SC 1147 , the appeal is from "caeser to Ceasers 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. If, as was noted in Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana & Ors. , AIR 1985 SC 1147 , the appeal is from "caeser to Ceasers 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. 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 & Anr. , (2005) 8 SCC 264 . " 8. In the case of U. P. Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R. S. Pandey & Anr. , (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. 9. In the case of Union of India & Anr. v. M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. , Balrampur & Anr. , 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 & Anr. , 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. 10. In the case of Union of India v. Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Northern Bench), New Delhi & Anr. , 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. 10. In the result, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Petition dismissed.