##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO

NANDIKONDA

Writ Petition No.2797 of 2026

Dated 30.01.2026

Between:

Mrs.Amna Akbarhusain Baigam …Petitioner

AND

The Union of India rep by its Secretary to

Ministry of Finance, Depart of Revenue,

Government of India, North Block, Central Secretariat,

New Delhi, Delhi – 110 001 and others.

…Respondents

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.S.M.Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of

India for respondent No.1 and Ms.M.Pravallika, learned counsel

representing Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned senior standing

counsel for CBIC for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The instant is the writ petition filed assailing the order

dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals in

2

Appeal No.100/2025-Cus O-in-O No.22/2025 (RGIA)-Adjn.Cus

JC dated 30.06.2025 DIN – 20251156DM000000C76F.

3. At the outset, this Bench is not inclined to entertain this

writ petition for the simple reason that the impugned order is the

one which is an appealable before the Customs, Excise and

Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 129-A

of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order is the one which

has been passed after resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal

before the Commissioner of Appeals. Merely because the

Commissioner of Appeals has turned down the contention of the

petitioner by itself cannot be a ground for the writ Court in writ

jurisdiction, at this juncture, when the petitioner has a statutory,

alternative remedy for redressal of his grievance by preferring

appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act before the

CESTAT.

4. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the present writ

petition are all grounds which can be considered by the Appellate

Tribunal. It is not a case where the petitioner has made out a case

3

for this Bench to exercise the writ jurisdiction departing from the

statutory recourse available for the petitioner.

5. In view of the same, reserving the right of the petitioner

to avail the remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, the instant writ

petition, at this juncture, stands rejected holding it as not

maintainable.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________

P.SAM KOSHY, J

_________________________________

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J

30.01.2026

mrm