ORDER Heard Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Excise. Challenge in the present writ application has been made to an order dated 01.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal No. 06/CE/B-1/2010, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner-M/s. Narbheram Power & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as SCAW Industries Pvt. Ltd.) was not entertained on account of rejection of the condonation of delay petition filed on behalf of the appellant Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contents that the impugned order itself indicates non-application of judicial mind and arbitrary action, inasmuch as, the appeal had been filed within 90 days, i.e. within maximum extended period permitted in law, but the Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept the grounds for the delay as cited by the appellant and refused to exercise his discretion in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the consultant of the petitioner-company was of an advanced age and due to his illness, the appeal could not be filed within 60 days. But the appeal was filed within 90 days and the additional period of 30 days should have been condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds stated therein. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Excise raised preliminary question on the maintainability of the writ application, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant has an alternate remedy by way of filing an appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the CESTAT and he not having done so, has invoked the writ jurisdiction which is not in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 651, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-15 thereof came to hold as follows: "15. In our opinion, the assessee ought not to have filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Tribunal. The Excise Law is a complete code in order to seek redress in excise matters and hence may not be appropriate for the writ Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Excise Law is a complete code in order to seek redress in excise matters and hence may not be appropriate for the writ Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that since the assessee has a remedy in the form of a right of appeal under the statute, that remedy must be exhausted first. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, ought not to have been interfered with by the Division Bench of the High Court in the appeal filed by the respondent assessee." Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that while there can be two opinion on the contention raised by the counsel for the Central Excise, yet the plea of existence of alternate remedy is not a bar for exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the present circumstance, the appellate remedy, which is otherwise a right of the aggrieved party, was not extended to the present petitioner by arbitrarily rejecting his prayer for condoning the delay, although the appeal had been filed within the permissible period of 90 days. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Central Excise; we are of the considered view that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the excise law is a complete code in order to seek redressal in excise matters. It would not be appropriate for the writ Court to entertain the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, while upholding the objection raised by the learned counsel for the Central Excise, in the present case, we grant liberty to the petitioner, if he so desires, file an appropriate appeal before the CESTAT as permitted under the statute within two months from today along with a petition for condonation of delay. The said petition for condonation should be liberally considered keeping in view the fact that this matter has been pending before this Court and the appeal shall be heard and disposed of on its own merit expeditiously. It is made clear that nothing stated in this order shall amount to an opinion on the merits of the case. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. It is made clear that nothing stated in this order shall amount to an opinion on the merits of the case. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Application disposed of.