JUDGMENT : It has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners that both the writ petitions may be heard together since similar issues are involved. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also agreed for analogous hearing of both the writ petitions. 3. In view thereof, both the matters are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020 has been filed invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein following prayers have been made :- 1. a) To issue a writ/order/direction directing the Respondent not to give effect to the Order-in-Original No.15/COMMR/2015 dated 04/03/2015 (Annexure-3); b) To issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari directing the Respondents, their servants, agents and/or assigns to transmit all records pertaining to the case so that conscionable justice may be done to the petitioner by quashing the said Order-in-Original No.15/COMMR/2015 dated 04/03/2015 (Annexure-3); c) An Interim Order directing the Respondent Authorities not to give effect to the said Order-in-Original No.15/COMMR/2015 dated 04.03.2015 (Annexure-3) and/or not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the said Order dated 04/03/2015 (Annexure-3). In W.P.(T) No. 3174 of 2021 following prayers have been made :- 1. a) To issue a writ/order/direction directing the Respondent not to give effect to the Order-in-Original No.08/Commr./2015 dated 23.01.2015 (Annexure-3); b) To issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari directing the Respondents, their servants, agents and/or assigns to transmit all records pertaining to the case so that conscionable justice may be done to the petitioner by quashing the said Order-in-Original No.08/Commr./2015 dated 23.01.2015 (Annexure-3); c) An Interim Order directing the Respondent Authorities not to give effect to the said Order-in-Original No.08/Commr./2015 dated 23.01.2015 (Annexure-3) and/or not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the said Order dated 23.01.2015 (Annexure-3). 5. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petitions, read as hereunder :- It is the case of the petitioners that the statutory returns have been submitted before the Central Excise Authority and accordingly payment of Central Excise Duty has also been made regularly. The officers of the department, while scrutinizing the records of the petitioners, found some irregularities to the effect that the value of M. S. Ingot cleared by the petitioner was abnormally low compared to their cost of production. The officers of the department, while scrutinizing the records of the petitioners, found some irregularities to the effect that the value of M. S. Ingot cleared by the petitioner was abnormally low compared to their cost of production. The petitioners were asked to provide information/documents along with the details of electricity consumption for production of M. S. Ingots for the year 2008-09 onwards. The petitioners, accordingly, submitted their balance sheet as well as electricity bill for the entire period. But the authority, being not satisfied, has issued notice with a direction to show cause as to why the Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs.1,29,85,210/- (so far as it relates to W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020) and Rs. 82,29,209/- (so far as it relates to W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021) should not be demanded and recovered from the petitioners under Section 11A(4), charging of interest under Section 11AA/AB and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The writ petitioners submitted their reply to the said show cause notice denying and disputing the allegations but the same has been found to be not satisfactory and accordingly the Order-in-Original No.15/COMMR/2015 dated 04/03/2015 (in W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020) and Order-in-Original No.08/Commr./2015 dated 23.01.2015 (in W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021) were issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur by which, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs.1,29,85,210/- (so far as it relates to W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020) and Rs. 82,29,209/- (so far as it relates to W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021), charged interest under Section 11AB/AA and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The writ petitioners filed appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal challenging the legality and maintainability of the said Order-in-Original No.15/COMMR/2015 dated 04/03/2015 (in W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020) and Order-in-Original No.08/Commr./2015 dated 23.01.2015 (in W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021) but the Tribunal did not entertain the appeals since the petitioners did not deposit the amount in terms of the amended provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed appeals before this Court against the order of Tribunal for not entertaining the appeals for non-compliance of deposit in terms of Section 35F being T.A. No.7 of 2016, subject matter of W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020, and T.A. No.6 of 2016 subject matter of W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021 but the aforesaid Tax Appeals have also been dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2016. Thereafter, the instant writ petitions have been filed seeking therein the prayers for giving no effect to the Order-in- Original No.15/COMMR/2015 dated 04/03/2015 (in W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020) and Order-in-Original No.08/Commr./2015 dated 23.01.2015 (in W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021). 6. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, raised the issue of maintainability of the instant writ petitions by taking the plea that once the appeal has been dismissed by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the remedy available to assail the said order is provided under Section 35L i.e., by way of filing an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, as such the instant writ petitions are not maintainable. 7. In response, Mr. Nirmal Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the respondent to make submission about non-maintainability of the writ petitions because even though there is provision of appeal but it does not bar this Court to exercise the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, as such, these writ petitions are well maintainable. 8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. The facts not in dispute in these cases are that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners which were duly replied but the replies having not found to be satisfactory, demand to the tune of Rs.1,29,85,210/- (so far as it relates to W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020) and Rs. 82,29,209/- (so far as it relates to W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021) was raised. The petitioners, against the aforesaid demand, preferred appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 82,29,209/- (so far as it relates to W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021) was raised. The petitioners, against the aforesaid demand, preferred appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeals have been dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of the provision as contained under Sub-Section (1) of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as per which unless the appellant deposits 7 ½ per cent, the appeal will not be entertained. Admittedly, the requisite amount to be deposited before filing of the appeal i.e., 7 ½ per cent since has not been deposited, therefore, the appeals have been dismissed. The writ petitioners approached this court under its appellate jurisdiction by filing Tax Appeals but the same have been dismissed, as would appear from order dated 27.07.2016, as appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petitions. Thereafter, the instant writ petitions have been filed by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The orders by which the Tax Appeal bearing T.A. No.7 of 2016, subject matter of W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020, and T.A. No.6 of 2016 subject matter of W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021 have been dismissed, have been appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petitions wherefrom it appears that in addition to the ground of non-deposit of the statutory amount to prefer an appeal, this Court has also taken into consideration the orders passed in writ petitions being W.P.(T) No.6142 of 2014, W.P.(T) No.4858 of 2015, W.P.(T) No.3560 of 2015 and W.P.(T) No.4859 of 2015 wherein this Court has upheld the validity of Section 35F as substituted by Finance Act, 2014 and hence, for the reasons given in the writ petitions, the Tax Appeals have also been dismissed. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction read as hereunder :- “2. In the facts of the present case, this appellant has preferred the appeal before the Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata without deposition of any amount, as required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and hence, no error has been committed by the Appellate Tribunal in dismissing the appeal preferred by this appellant vide order dated 16.09.2015, which is the impugned order in this Tax Appeal. 3. 3. this Court has decided writ petitions being W.P.(T) No.6142 of 2014 with W.P.(T) No.4858 of 2015 with W.P.(T) No.3560 of 2015 with W.P.(T) No.4859 of 2015 and this Court has upheld the validity of Section 35F as substituted by the Finance act, 2014 and hence, for the reasons given in these writ petitions being W.P.(T) No.6142 of 2014, W.P.(T) No.4858 of 2015, W.P.(T) No.3560 of 2015 and W.P.(T) No.4859 of 2015, this Tax Appeal is also hereby, dismissed.” 10. The question of maintainability of the writ petitions has been raised on the ground that once a tax appeal has been dismissed by this Court, the remedy available is only to file appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under the provision of Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This Court has perused the provision as contained under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 whereby it has been provided that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment of the High Court delivered in an appeal made under section 35G. 11. Therefore, this Court is of the view that once the statute has carved out a provision of appeal against the order passed by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction, the same is required to be adhered to in its strict sense. In the case in hand, since the provision has been made to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the remedy available to the writ petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction conferred under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 i.e., by way of filing appeal before the Supreme Court and not by way of filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and if the writ petition will be entertained, the same will be nothing but encroaching the jurisdiction conferred to the Hon'ble Apex Court and by doing that it will amount to exceeding the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. 12. It needs to be referred herein the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory [ (2012) 8 SCC 524 ], wherein against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as under Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the writ petition has been entertained by the concerned High Court, which has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 9 of the said judgment which reads as hereunder:- “9. While declining to interfere in the present special leave petition preferred against the order passed by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we hereby make it clear that the orders of the Commission are incapable of being questioned under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as a statutory appeal in terms of Section 27-A(1)(c) lies to this Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation in issuing a direction of caution that it will not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts to entertain writ petitions against such orders of the Commission.” 13. The aforesaid judgment is being referred herein taking into consideration the similar provision as contained under Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to that of Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as would be evident from the bare reading of both the Sections. For ready reference Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 27-A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are being referred hereunder :- Section 35L of Central Excise Act, 1944 35L. Appeal to Supreme Court. - An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from - (a) any judgment of the High Court delivered – (i) in an appeal made under section 35G; or (ii) on a reference made under section 35G by the Appellate Tribunal before the 1st day of July, 2003; (iii) on a reference made under section 35H.” Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?27A. Appeal against order passed under section 27.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from- (a) the order made by the District Forum to the State Commission; (b) the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and (c) the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court.” 14. This Court, therefore, applying the observation made in the aforesaid case, is of the considered view that if the instant writ petitions will be entertained, the same will amount to exceeding the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions are not maintainable and as such, dismissed. 16. The writ petitioners are at liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under the statute.