IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No.1904 of 2007 Between: Cairn Energy India Private Limited, Wellington Plaza, 2nd floor, 90, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Visakhapatnam-II, Commissionerate, Central Excise Building, Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530 035 and another. .....RESPONDENTS The Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki and The Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Writ Petition No.1904 of 2007 Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki) Appeals were ﬁled before the Tribunal against certain orders of the ﬁrst respondent- Commissioner of Central Excise and certain orders of the second respondent-Joint Commissioner of Central Excise. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appeals ﬁled against the orders passed by the ﬁrst respondent- Commissioner were allowed whereas the two appeals ﬁled against the orders passed by the second respondent-Joint Commissioner were dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that those appeals should have been ﬁled before the ﬁrst respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Thereafter, the petitioner ﬁled appeals before the ﬁrst respondent- Commissioner, who had dismissed the appeals on the ground that they were time barred. According to the ﬁrst respondent- Commissioner, the said appeals were ﬁled with a delay of 92 days and he had no power to condone the delay beyond 90 days. Mr.Ravi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had chosen a wrong forum and the appeal was pending for quite considerable time before that forum, he had moved an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, before the ﬁrst respondent- Commissioner stating that the time spent in wrong forum should not be taken into account for the purpose of computation of period of limitation, but, the ﬁrst respondent- Commissioner did not at all consider that aspect in his order dated 17-11-2006. We do not want to comment on this submission at this stage because we feel that the impugned order can also be challenged before the appellate Tribunal and all the pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court can be raised before the Tribunal as well. Since an eﬃcacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, we do not entertain this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _________________________ (Bilal Nazki, J) 5th February, 2007 __________________________ (Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J) Note: The original order be given back to the learned Counsel for the petitioner after retaining its copy. B/o lur