Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for and quash the order of the first respondent, in Order-in-Original No.21/2007, dated 30.11.2007. 2. It is stated that the petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts and components, falling under Chapter 8708.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner company is having central excise Registration Certificate and it has been supplying manufactured automobile parts and components, to M/s.Mahindra Ford Limited (Ford India Limited). While so, the petitioner company had developed `Dies and Tools’ to manufacture the automobile parts and components, as required by its clients, involving very high costs and investment. Therefore, the petitioner company had entered into an agreement, with M/s.Mahindra Ford Limited and had availed a tooling advance, to be adjusted against the supply of automobile parts and components. 3. The petitioner company, in its balance sheet, capitalized the said tooling advance and had claimed depreciation on it. Based on the estimated life of the tools, they were to be used for production of upto two lakh units. Accordingly, the amortization cost per unit had been calculated, by taking into account two lakh pieces. Due to certain technical reasons, M/s. Mahindra Ford Limited had to stop the manufacturing of motor vehicles (Escort model) and hence, they had directed the petitioner company to stop the manufacture of particular automobile parts and components. 4. In such circumstances, as the petitioner company had invested heavy amounts of money in developing the `Dies and Tools', M/s.Mahindra Ford Limited had accepted to compensate the tooling cost to the petitioner company, due to the cancellation of its orders. Accordingly, entries were made in the books and the difference between the unadjusted advance written off by M/s.Mahindra Ford Limited and the written down value of the tooling was written off by the petitioner company, during the year 20002001, amounting to Rs.47,41,578/-. 5. Out of the said amount of Rs.47,41,578/-, Rs.15,69,578/- had been credited to the petitioner’s Nasik unit and Rs.31,72,000/- had been credited to the Chennai Unit of the petitioner company, under the head `Miscellaneous Income’. 5. Out of the said amount of Rs.47,41,578/-, Rs.15,69,578/- had been credited to the petitioner’s Nasik unit and Rs.31,72,000/- had been credited to the Chennai Unit of the petitioner company, under the head `Miscellaneous Income’. While so, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Commissionerate, had issued a Show Cause Notice No.79/2005, dated 25.10.2005, calling upon the petitioner company to show cause, as to why the excise duty of Rs.5,07,520/-, at 16% on the tooling advance of Rs.31,72,000/-, written off, is not leviable on the additional consideration paid, by M/s.Mahindra Ford Limited, in respect of the Chennai Unit, under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with appropriate interest, under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. The petitioner company had submitted a detailed reply, dated 16.11.2005, stating that there was no intention to evade payment of duty, as alleged by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Commissionerate, and that the show cause notice issued, in respect of the year 2001-2002, is barred by limitation. 7. It had also been stated that the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik, Maharashtra, had dropped the proceedings, relating to the same issue. However, without accepting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner company, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise had confirmed the excise duty demand of Rs.5,07,520/- at 16% on the tooling advance of Rs.31,72,000/- written off, to recover the appropriate interest on the duty confirmed and had also imposed a penalty of Rs.5,07,520/-, under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and also a penalty of Rs.5,07,520, under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, raising a total demand of Rs.15,22,560/- on the petitioner company. 8. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner company had filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appeal had been numbered as A.No.77/2006 [M-II]. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), by his order, dated 31.1.2007, made in Order-in-Appeal No.26/2007, had remanded the matter back to the lower authority for deciding the same, afresh, by observing the principles of natural justice, with a direction to follow the judgement of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras Vs. Shardlow India Limited 1999[110] ELT 772 [T]. Shardlow India Limited 1999[110] ELT 772 [T]. Further, the petitioner has been directed to produce all the requisite information and the documents, before the lower authority, as and when required by him, to decide the matter, as per law. Accordingly, the matter had been adjudicated by the second respondent, who had passed an order, dated 30.11.2007, in Order-in-Original No.21/2007. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had contended, inter alia, that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, without considering the ratio of the decision, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras Vs. Shardlow India Limited 1999[110] ELT 772 [T], and without following the directions issued by the appellate authority, while remanding the matter. 10. He had also stated that the first respondent had passed the impugned order without considering the principles laid down by the various decisions of the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chennai, as well as the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. It had also been stated that the respondent Department cannot take a different stand, in respect of the same issue, before two different authorities. While the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik, State of Maharashtra, had dropped the proceedings against the petitioner company, in respect of a similar issue, the first respondent cannot take a different stand in a similar matter, involving similar issues. 11. Relying on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has stated that the order passed by the first respondent is in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and therefore, it cannot be said that it is arbitrary and invalid. It has been further stated that the impugned Order-in-Original, dated 30.11.2007, had been passed by the first respondent, scrupulously, following the directions of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chennai, issued in Order-in-Appeal No.26/2007 (M-II), dated 31.1.2007. 12. It had also been stated that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik, State of Maharashtra, cannot be said to be binding on the adjudicating authority in another part of the country, as the issues which were before the first respondent involved certain issues relating to the interpretation of the rules and the regulations of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents had correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of law and had initiated action to recover the excise duty payable by the petitioner, with a view to prevent loss of revenue to the State. It had also been stated that the first respondent had considered all the issues raised by the petitioner company, while passing the impugned Order-in-Original, dated 30.11.2007. 13. It had also been stated that the petitioner company ought to have availed the alternative remedy provided under the statute. The impugned order, dated 30.11.2007, clearly states that an appeal against the said order may be filed, before the Commissioner (Appeals) Chennai, in the form prescribed, under Rule 3 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001, within sixty days from the date on which the order is communicated. While so, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner company ought to have availed the appellate remedy, by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. However, the petitioner has chosen to prefer the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without showing proper cause or reason to do so. 15. Even though, various grounds have been raised by the petitioner company, this Court does not find it appropriate to consider the same on merits, in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner company is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. 16. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner company to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Chennai, by raising all the grounds available to it, as per law, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such appeal being filed, the Commissioner (Appeals) Chennai, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. No costs.