IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2762 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.7.2010 M/s Fiamm Minda Automotive Ltd. ....Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. M.P.Devnath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 4.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P-1/A). 2. The case of the petitioner is that it availed Cenvat Credit on inputs and input services and capital gains relating to the manufacture of automobile components which was wrongly denied. Finally, the plea of the petitioner was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 30.1.2009 (Annexure P-17). Thereafter, the petitioner sought refund which plea was rejected on the ground that refund application had earlier been rejected and the same was not challenged. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of the appellate order dated 30.1.2009, the claim for refund could CWP No. 2762 of 2010 -2- not be rejected and thus, the impugned orders are erroneous. It has been wrongly held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The limitation had to commence after order, Annexure P-17, dated 30.1.2009. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents raises preliminary objection that remedy of appeal is available before the Tribunal and in the impugned order itself the petitioner was informed that he could file appeal before the Tribunal within three months from the date of communication. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was under apprehension that his point of view may not be appreciated by the Tribunal. We cannot accept this as a valid ground for not availing alternative remedy. The writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage in view of alternative remedy available to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition without prejudice to the alternative remedy to the petitioner in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 27, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE