ORDER [ENTITY], J.
1. This is a petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and seeks quashment of the show-cause notices dated 3-12-1990 (Annexure-T/l') and dated 4-12-1990 (Annexure - T/2') issued by respondent No. 3 ([ENTITY]).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the manufacturer of certain products. It obtained the benefit of exemption from payment of duty on the linchpin of notification which conferred exemption on the manufacturer of 'Super Enamelled Winding Copper Wire' provided it was made out of Wire Bars/or Rods or any bare wire of not less than 6mm dia. Respondent No. 3, however, found that the petitioner contravened the provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] & [SECTION] of [ACT] inasmuch as it claimed unintended benefits of exemption under Notification No. 69/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 as amended from time to time as also other notifications particularised in the aforesaid notices. The petitioner was asked to submit explanation and appear before the adjudicating authority within 30 days.
3. Aggrieved by these two notices, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. The respondents have filed the reply in oppugnation.
5. I have heard both the sides.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show-cause notices are without jurisdiction and thus deserve to be quashed in this petition. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the notices are within the jurisdiction and the petitioner should have shown the cause and taken all objections before appropriate authority rather than approaching this Court. The respondents have also taken a preliminary objection against the tenability of this petition on the ground that recourse to [SECTION] against show-cause notices is improper and the petitioner cannot be allowed to short circuit or circumvent the statutory provisions.
7. The counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the order dated 27-1-1995 -1995 (77) E.L.T. 74 (M.P.) passed by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] ([PRECEDENT]) wherein this Court declined interference in the face of show-cause notice.
8. In [PRECEDENT] the Apex Court fittingly illumined the path as under :-
"When a Statutory Forum or Tribunal is specially created by a statute for redressal of specified grievances of persons on certain matters, the High Court should not normally permit such persons to ventilate their specified grievance before it by entertaining petitions under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is a legal position which is too well settled."
9. Later in [PRECEDENT] the Supreme Court in reiteration ruled that orders of assessment, rendered under Tax Laws, should be tested under the relevant Act and in no other way, Earlier it was held in [PRECEDENT] that resourse to writ jurisdiction is not proper when more satisfactory solution is available on the terms of the statute itself. In my view, writ Court is not supposed to be killer of all evils visible in whatever shape or stage. In a recent verdict, Supreme Court has asked the High Courts to exercise their "extraordinary and discretionary power under writ jurisdiction with caution."
10. In view of the identical factual position and legal position, as considered in [CASE NUMBER]. I am of the view that preliminary objections raised by the respondents should be permitted to prevail in this case also and as such this petition should also suffer the same fate. In view of this position, I do not express any opinion on the merits of the matter but dispose of this petition with directions as under :-
(a) The petitioner is permitted to submit reply to the aforesaid showcause notices (Annexures-'P/1' & 'P/2') before appropriate authority by 15th of March, 1995 and to take all objections as may be permissible under the law and to contest the same.
(b) The appropriate authority shall consider the objections of the petitioner and take appropriate decision on the aforesaid show-cause notices in conformity with law as early as possible and communicate its result to the petitioner.
(c) If the order turns out to be adverse, the petitioner shall have freedom to pursue appropriate remedy against the same.
11. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of finally with no order as to costs.
12. The interim order of stay passed on 29-1-1991 and continued on 2-7-1992 is hereby vacated.
13. The security cost be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.
14. Certified copy to both the sides on usual charges.