( 1 ) THIS petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution has been filed against an order passed by CEGAT confirming an order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna. It is not disputed that the subject matter of the two impugned orders relates to determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or of the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment, the expression as used in Clause (b) of Section 35l of the Central Excises and Salt Act,1944. Statutory remedy of appeal to Supreme Court has been provided against such an order. Without pursuing the remedy of appeal this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution has been filed before this Court.

( 2 ) THE maintainability of the petition before the High Court has been objected to on behalf of the respondents submitting that the High Court would not entertain a writ petition brought before it by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal to Supreme Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition does lie before this Court. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in L. Chander Kumar v. UOI, 1997 (3) SCC 261, especially paras 91 a