JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of Pan Chatni. It is alleged that the petitioner has been classifying its product named Pan Chatni under Sub-heading 2103.11 of the Tariff Act and has been availing the exemption granted vide notification dated 203.1990. Subsequently the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ghaziabad reviewed its previous order and reclassified the product Pan Chatni manufactured by the petitioner under Sub-heading 2107.91 and charged duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem in the terms of the notification dated 203.1990. Subsequently the petitioner was served with a notice of demand dated 24.6.1983 vide annexure 9 to the writ petition. It is against these two orders that the petitioners have come up to this Court by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the order dated 185.1993 before the appellate authority which is still pending. It is settled view of law that a party cannot be permitted to pursue two remedies simultaneously. In view of this, we decline to interfere with the order dated 185.1993. Alternate remedy--Court interference with demand of duty not justified in view of alternate remedy
3. Earned Counsel for the petitioner then urged that the petitioner is threatened with a notice of demand dated 24.6.1993 and as such this Court way interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. This order dated 24.6.1993 is also appealable. The petitioner may file an appeal against this order also. In view of the fact that the petitioner has an alternative remedy, we aw not inclined to interfere with this order. The petitioner may file an appeal and also move waiver/stay application in the pending Appeal already filed or the appeal which may be filed against the notice or demand which shall be considered in accordance with law.
4. For a period of 5 weeks, the respondents are directed not to take steps for recovery of duty in pursuance of notice of demand dated 24.6.1993. We may clarify that the appellate authority, while considering waiver/stay application, shall not be influenced by our order granting interim protection to the petitioner. The said application, if filed, shall be considered in accordance with law.
The petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.