S. Manikumar, J.

1. Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, is sought for, to quash the order of the CESTAT, Chennai, in Final Order No. 40582/2017, dated 03.04.2017. After scrutiny of the case papers, Registry has returned the same, with the following endorsement:

"When there is an appeal remedy available under 35G of Central Excise Act 1944 and Customs Act, 1962 and also as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P. No. 36051/2004 (Batch cases) as categorically stated, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable, remedy for the Writ Petition is to only file an appeal before High Court under Section 35G of Central Excise Act 1944 or under Section 130 of the Customs Act 1962 when it applies.

Therefore it may be clarified as to how the Writ Petition is maintainable U/Art. 226 Constitution of India for the reason stated supra."

When the writ petition came up for hearing for maintainability on 05.09.2017, a learned single Judge, has minuted as follows:

"This matter is listed today under the caption 'for maintainability'.

2. Registry has raised a doubt as regards maintainability of this writ petition, as the petitioner has challenged a final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. It has been pointed out by the Registry that in terms of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, as against the impugned order, an appeal lies to the Division Bench and therefore, the Registry wanted the petitioner to explain as to how the writ petition is maintainable. On an explanation being submitted by the petitioner on 01.8.2017, still the Registry has a doubt with regard to the maintainability and therefore, the matter is before this Court under the said caption.

3. Heard Mr. Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Thiruchitrambalam Projects Ltd. v. CESTAT, Chennai [reported in 2016-4-L.W. 733 : 2016 (43) STR 531], the writ petition is maintainable and also relied upon paragraph 10, which reads as follows:

"Therefore, we are of the considered view that the answer given in paragraph 80 of its decision by the Division Bench in Metal Weld Electrodes, is perfectly correct. But, at the same time, in exceptional circumstances carved out in the second part of paragraph 38 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Shivhare, the writ petitions are also maintainable."

5. In terms of the above decision, the writ petition is maintainable, as the Division Bench has pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement [reported in 2010-4-L.W. 1 : (2010) 253 ELT 3 has carved out certain exceptions. However, the difficulty for this Court to decide on the maintainability is on account of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court, in Thiruchitrambalam Projects Ltd., held that writ petitions cannot be posted before Single Judges and that they have to be posted only before the Division Benches dealing with tax cases.

6. Therefore, the Registry is directed to prepare a note regarding maintainability of the writ petition and place the same before the Division Bench for orders."

2. Thus, W.P. Sr. No. 71173 of 2017, is listed before us, for maintainability.

3. Inviting the attention of this Court to Paragraph 44 of the judgment made in Metal Weld Electrodes v. CESTAT reported in 2013 Writ L.R. 1041 : 2014 (299) ELT 3 (Mad.), considered in Thiruchitrambalam Projects Ltd. v. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2016-4-L.W. 733 : 2016 (43) STR 531, wherein, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that writ petition, against the order of CESTAT, is maintainable and further contending that when CESTAT, Madras, in the case of the petitioner, on the same set of facts, passed two different orders, Mr. ARL. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the instant writ petition, filed a