A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, we are not satisfied that this is a fit case for interference at the stage of admission.
(2.) By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of an order dated 30th September 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division-II, Kanpur disallowing the exemption claimed by the petitioners under notification No. 115/86 dated 1-3-1986 See [1986] 8 ECC St. 204 on the quantity of vegetable products manufactured out of the rice bran oil of edible grade. The order was sought to be challenged on the ground that the same was based on wrong reports as well as on the ground that the petitioners have not been afforded adequate opportunity to represent their case properly. We, however, find that the petitioners have already filed an appeal against that order before the Appellate Collector [Collector, Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) ], New Delhi and that the same is still pending. In that appeal the petitioners applied for stay and the same was refused by the appellate authority as far back as on 24-11-1986. The learned counsel has made an attempt to question the correctness of that order also on the ground that the same does not disclose any reasons in support thereof.
(3.) We are of the opinion that as the petitioners have already chosen to pursue an effective and alternative remedy by way of filing a statutory appeal and that the said appeal is still pending before that authority, this Court ought not to entertain the challenge to the impugned order on merits. It is apparent that the petitioners cannot be permitted to pursue two remedies simultaneously. Further the petitioners have approached this Court after nearly six months from the date of the passing of the impugned order. Thus this is not a fit case for interference at this stage. The same is accordingly dismissed summarily.;