ORDER : Harsha Devani, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order-In-Original dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Division-III, Surat-II (hereinafter referred to as the "adjudicating authority"), against one M/s. Roma Industries, Surat. 2. Mr. Masoom Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners has reiterated the grounds stated in the memorandum of the petition and has further submitted that though the impugned Order-In-Original has been passed against M/s. Roma Industries, in effect and substance the recovery of the dues, which have been assessed under the impugned Order-In-Original, is likely to be sought to be made against the petitioners herein. The attention of the court was invited to the no due certificate dated 10.09.2013 (Annexure-P/24 to the petition) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, wherein it has been recorded that M/s. Shaniyal D & P Mills Private Limited, predecessor of petitioner No. 1, has paid dues of M/s. Roma Industries amounting to Rs. 1,40,48,110/-, as per the undertaking dated 04.06.2002 given by Mr. Vikesh J. Mandviwala. It was submitted that in the light of the above undertaking given by Mr. Vikesh Mandviwala, who is not even a Director of M/s. Shaniyal D & P Mills Private Limited, it is likely that the respondents would seek to recover the dues of M/s. Roma Industries from the petitioners and hence, the petitioners are constrained to challenge the Order-In-Original. It was, accordingly, urged that the matter requires consideration. 3. As is evident from the facts noted hereinabove, what is subject matter of challenge in the petition is an Order-In-Original dated 28.12.2016 passed by the adjudicating authority. It is an accepted position that against the order passed by the adjudicating authority, appeal lies to the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. When there is an efficacious alternative remedy available under the statute, this court, would not ordinarily exercise powers under article 226 of the Constitution India unless it is pointed out that the order impugned is without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction or that the authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or if the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Before this court nothing has been pointed out to establish that this case relates to any of the above referred circumstances. Under the circumstances, no case has been made out for exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Another notable aspect of the matter is that the impugned Order-In-Original has been passed against one M/s. Roma Industries and not against the petitioners. The learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the undertaking given by Mr. Vikesh Mandviwala, who had no authority to act on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioners apprehend that the petitioners would be liable to pay dues of M/s. Roma Industries. Even if that be so, the remedy lies by way of appeal under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, inasmuch in the absence of any jurisdictional error or violation of the principles of natural justice being pointed out in the impugned Order-In-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the question of exercising powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India would not arise. 5. In the result, the petition fails and is, accordingly, summarily dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority. 6. It is clarified that this court has not examined the merits of the impugned Order-In-Original and has dismissed the petition only on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy. In case the petitioners avail of the remedy under the statute, the appeal shall be considered on merits in accordance with law, without in any manner being influenced by dismissal of the present petition.