ORDER : (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. The petitioners have challenged the Order in Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara. Although, this order is available on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, petitioner approached this Court. 2. The Show Cause Notice dated 06.01.2017 involving the period from December 2011 to March 2016, has been issued upon the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the personal hearing of the matter at the time of adjudication of the Show Cause Notice, was on 17.02.2017 by the Anand Commissioner, as the proceedings were within the jurisdiction of Anand Commissioner. The officer concerned, who had heard the parties at the time of bifurcation of jurisdiction was transferred to Vadodara Jurisdiction and thus the Order in Original has been decided by the Commissioner, C.G.S.T. And Central Excise, Vadodara-1. The order, which is impugned, was passed on 15.03.2018. Thus, there are two fold grievance on the part of the petitioners; firstly the officer who had heard the petitioners personally at Annand, has not decided the matter and instead it is the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara, who adjudicated the matter and secondly, there was substantial delay in delivering the judgment after having heard the parties. This long delay between the date of hearing and adjudication of the matter, is the second major grievance on the part of the petitioners. The period of 13 months, according to the petitioner, is unsustainable under the law and various judgments of the High Court are supportive of this challenge on the part of the petitioners. This long delay between the date of hearing and adjudication of the matter, is the second major grievance on the part of the petitioners. The period of 13 months, according to the petitioner, is unsustainable under the law and various judgments of the High Court are supportive of this challenge on the part of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court with following prayers: “(A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside OIO No.VAD-EXCUS-001- COM-32-17-18 dated 15.03.2018 (ANNEXURE-”F') passed by the 2nd Respondent therein; (B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, completely and permanently prohibiting the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any action against the Petitioner Company pursuant to OIO No.VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-32- 17-18 dated 15.03.2018 (ANNEXURE-”F'); (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any action against the Petitioner Company, including any action of coercive recovery, pursuant to OIO No.VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-32-17-18 dated 15.03.2018 thereby staying implementation and execution of this OIO No.VAD-EXCUS-001- COM-32-17-18 dated 15.03.2018; (D) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 21 (C) above may kindly be granted. (E) Any other further relief that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted.” 3. On issuance of notice, the respondents appeared and filed its reply dated 20.09.2018, wherein it is contended that the petition is not maintainable, as the order impugned is available under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('the Act' for short). According to the respondents, the grievance on the part of the petitioners that the order impugned is passed by some other officer, who had not heard the matter, will have no sustainability. The officer, Ms. Mallika Mahajan, who passed the Order in Original, was the officer who had given the personal hearing to the petitioners on 17.02.2017. On account of bifurcation of jurisdiction, the proceedings when were placed before the Excise Commissioner, Vaodara, she was the one, who was made the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara and she delivered the order impugned, which of course, is with some gap. It is, however, further defended that the hearing was concluded on 21.08.2017. On account of bifurcation of jurisdiction, the proceedings when were placed before the Excise Commissioner, Vaodara, she was the one, who was made the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara and she delivered the order impugned, which of course, is with some gap. It is, however, further defended that the hearing was concluded on 21.08.2017. The respondent also issued a letter on 21.07.2017 calling for the informations from the petitioners and the same were furnished on 21.08.2017. Therefore, the delivery of the order on 15.03.2018, cannot be said to be a delay of 13 Months and therefore also the petition deserves no entertainment. 4. A Rejoinder Affidavit is filed by the petitioners, wherein it is averred by the petitioners that for the further period from April, 2016 to June, 2017, another Show Cause Notice being No.V.Ch.31(4)01/GSFC/Commr-I/2018-19 dated 18.04.2018, has been served upon the petitioner proposing to recover a sum of Rs.10,80,65,688/as Central Excise duty with interest and penalty. 5. The factual as well as the legal issues in second show cause notice have been identical. The adjudication order was passed on 11.01.2019 by the respondent no.2, confirming the central excise demand of Rs.10.80 Crore with interest (rounded off). The same had been challenged, pending the present petition, by way of a substantive Appeal before the Central Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the CESTAT' for short), Ahmedabad being the Appeal No.10576 of 2019 and the same has been allowed on merit as well as on the ground of limitation on 28.02.2020. It is, therefore, the say of the petitioner that the Tribunal since has held in favour of the petitioners entitling it to get the exemption which has been denied by the adjudicating authority, a demand containing the Show Cause Notice is not only unsustainable legally but also barred by law of limitation, as the same is given invoking larger period of limitation. 6. We have heard extensively learned advocate Mr.Amal Paresh Dave with learned advocate, Mr.Paresh Dave, for the petitioners, Mr.Parth Y.Diveshvar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr.Viral Shah, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.2. 7. We could notice that here challenges essentially are on two counts; firstly on the ground that the officer having heard the petitioners as Anand Commissioner not having passed the Order in Original after the bifurcation, as the same is passed by the the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara. 7. We could notice that here challenges essentially are on two counts; firstly on the ground that the officer having heard the petitioners as Anand Commissioner not having passed the Order in Original after the bifurcation, as the same is passed by the the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara. Although, the person who heard and delivered the same is the same officer and secondly the delivery of judgment is in the gap of nearly 13 months from the date of hearing and the date of disposal. 8. It is not in dispute that the order is appealable under Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which provides for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appeal is communicated. The alternative efficacious remedy is available. Therefore, we are inclined to relegate the parties to the CESTAT. We could not oblivious of the averments of breach of principles of natural justice and also the emphasis on the delay in delivering the judgment and order by the adjudicating authority; however, in the interregnum, since in the case of the very petitioner, the second Show Cause Notice for the subsequent period from April 2016 to June 2017, which came against the petitioner when challenged to the CESTAT, the judgment has been delivered in favour of the petitioner on 28.02.2020. It is not in dispute that all questions regarding factual matrix as well as legal issues raised in the first Show Cause Notice and in the second Show Cause Notice are identical. There has been no challenge further on the part of either the revenue or the petitioner to the said order of CESTAT dated 28.02.2020 delivered in Excise Appeal No.10576 of 2019. 9. The two questions that may arise when we relegate the parties to the CESTAT; the first is of the period of limitation, which is otherwise of 90 days. The petitioner since was pursuing its remedy before this Court, the question of limitation would not come in his way. 9. The two questions that may arise when we relegate the parties to the CESTAT; the first is of the period of limitation, which is otherwise of 90 days. The petitioner since was pursuing its remedy before this Court, the question of limitation would not come in his way. So far as the aspect of the second issue with regard to predeposit which is the amount equal to 7.5% of the duty demand to be deposited under Section 35 F of the Act is concerned, this speaks of mandatory deposit of service, percentage of amount in dispute while filing the Appeal before the CESTAT and the same has been brought on the statute book from 06.08.2014. For getting the relief from the CESTAT, minimum 7.5% of the duty of the demand made, is a must. Since the discretion earlier which was with the CESTAT of directing the nonpayment of the same by way of speaking order, is no longer on the statute book. 10. It is urged before us that this Court would alone have such powers, if at all there is any order for waiver of the duty. The decision rendered in case of Manoj Kumar Jha Vs. DRI, 2019 (365) E.L.T. 166 (Delhi), is sought to be relied upon for the said purpose. It is urged by the learned advocate, Mr.Amal Paresh Dave that unless the amount of predeposit is dispensed with, it would be impossible for the petitioner to seek any relief from the CESTAT although, in this very case, the issues have been held in his favour. 11. We notice the Communication dated 21.07.2017 called for from the petitioner by Superintendent, Range-1, Division-3, CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara. The reply on the part of the petitioner dated 21.08.2017 indicates the total value of the sulphur at Rs.74,93,182.13 and duty involved including the cess being of Rs.9,32,088.25. Therefore, we pertinently inquired from the learned standing counsel to get the details from the respective authorities of the exact amount of the duties, which the petitioner would be required to pay as per the decision of the CESTAT. 12. Therefore, we pertinently inquired from the learned standing counsel to get the details from the respective authorities of the exact amount of the duties, which the petitioner would be required to pay as per the decision of the CESTAT. 12. The Communication shared with us today by the learned counsel Mr.Viral Shah, points out that as per the order of the CESTAT dated 28.02.2020, the demand within limitation on the quantity of sulphur used in manufacture of Hydroxylamine sulphate (HX/HAS) and Phosphoric Acid sold by the petitioner on payment of the duty, if is considered, the total duty including cess would come to Rs.9,32,088.25/. Based on this figure, the amount of predeposit at the rate of 7.5% would come to Rs.3,63,784/. Subject to the deposit of this amount within a period of One Week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and filing of the Appeal within a period of Four Weeks from the date of receipt of order, before the CESTAT, the petition is not being entertained on merits while relegating the parties to the CESTAT, without entering into the merits of the OrderinOriginal and keeping all issues open for the parties to agitate before the Tribunal for it to adjudicate the merit in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this matter. 13. This order shall not be treated as precedent, as in case of the very petitioner the CESTAT has ordered in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the petition on the issues raised on facts and law which are not only similar, but are identical. 14. In view of the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. The disposal of this petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing the remedy before the Tribunal.