Markandey Katju, CJ.

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 15.10.2004.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The writ petition had been filed before the learned single Judge against the order of the CEGAT dated 09.07.1997.

4. We are surprised that this writ petition was entertained at all. There was a clear alternative remedy against the order of the CEGAT dated 09.07.1997 by means of filing a Reference Application before the CEGAT under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and if that application was rejected by the CEGAT there was a second alternative remedy of approaching this Court under Section 35G(3) of the Act seeking a direction to the CEGAT to make a reference to this Court.

5. It is well settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that particularly in tax matters there should be no short circuiting of the statutory remedies, vide Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar Vs. Dunlop India Limited, AIR 1985 SC 330, etc.

6. It is well settled that wh