HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3749 OF WRIT PETITION NO. 3749 OF WRIT PETITION NO. 3749 OF 1995 M/s. Veekay Papers and Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.K. Shetty for the Petitioners. Mr. R.V. Desai with Mr.A.S. Rao i/by H.P.Chaturvedi for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 13, 2008 DATED: MARCH 13, 2008 DATED: MARCH 13, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule. Heard forthwith. . By order dated 1.11.1993 the subject goods were classified and duty was demanded from the Petitioners herein. The Petitioners aggrieved by that order, preferred Petition before this court being W.P. No. 135 of 1994. That Petition was disposed of by this court by its order dated 3.2.1994. A direction was given to the Collector to dispose of the matter. . In pursuance to that direction, the Collector by his order dated 25.4.1994 proceeded to pass an order upholding the order of the Assistant Collector of Central excise. Petitioner aggrieved preferred a Petition befo9re the Court. The Petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the Petitioner approached Supreme Court. The order of this court was set aside an the matter has been remanded back to this court. . Under Section 35(E)(2) the Commissioner of Central Excise in suo motu exercise of his powers could have called for the records and after satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order, direct such Authority or any Central Excise Officer to apply to Commissioner (Appeals) for determination of such points arising out of the decision or order, as may be specified by the Commissioner or Central Excise in his order. . In the instant case, the Petitioner against the order of Assistant Collector had remedy by way of appeal. Instead of seeking that remedy he approached this court where the direction was given. The Commissioner acted pursuant to direction of this court. The Petition filed was dismissed. However, considering that SLP filed was allowed and matter remanded back. In our opinion, the Petitioner herein really cannot be denied the remedy which otherwise should be entitled to in law more so as the writ petition by this court was dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner had alternative remedy. . In the light of the above, in our opinion, to meet the ends of justice, the order of the Collector of Central Excise is set aside. The petitioner is directed to prefer appeal to the appellate authority. Considering the factual position and the peculiar facts, we treat the date of passing of this order as date for the purpose of commencement of limitation for the Petitioner to file his appeal. . Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)