JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order in Original passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin dated 23.12.2014, wherein and whereby the petitioners were imposed with penalty. 2. Admittedly, as against the order impugned in this writ petition, the petitioner has got a right of statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. This Court has already taken a consistent view that when a statutory right of appeal is available in fiscal matters, the order in original cannot be challenged by filing the writ petition especially under the circumstances when such an order came to be passed by the competent authority. 4. The petitioner filed this writ petition by raising by very many grounds on merits of the matter. However, this Court is not inclined to go into the same, sine this Court is fully convinced that this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 5. It is well settled that in cases involving fiscal nature, availing of statutory appellate remedy has to be first exhausted and the party cannot come directly to this Court and file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the following decisions:- 1) M/s. Nivaram Pharma Private Limited rep. by its Director Sardarmal M. Chordia, Madras -vs- The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras and others reported in (2005) 2 MLJ 246 (DB) 2) United Bank of India -vs- Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 3) Raj Kumar Shivhare -vs- Assistant Director, directorate of Enforcement and Another reported in (2010) 4 SCC 772 . 4) Metal Weld Electrodes -vs- CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2014 (299) ELT 3 DB. 6. It is held in those decisions that when an alternative remedy is available, more particularly, in the cases of fiscal nature, invoking of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not permissible. In fact this Court on 03.02.2015 after referring to the above decisions has dismissed a writ petition in W.P (MD)No. 19328 of 2014 on the very same ground and in W.P.(MD)No.1409 of 2015 dated 05.02.2015. 7. In fact this Court on 03.02.2015 after referring to the above decisions has dismissed a writ petition in W.P (MD)No. 19328 of 2014 on the very same ground and in W.P.(MD)No.1409 of 2015 dated 05.02.2015. 7. Accordingly, I find that the writ petition is not maintainable and consequently, the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of four weeks. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.