[2025:RJ-JP:47441-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5188/2025 M/s Entire Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Subodh Tyagi, 207, M.S. Chamber, Laxmi Nagar, Near Heer Sweets, Main Vikas Marg, New Delhi-110092 ----Petitioner Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur, HQRS: N.C.R. Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sahil Arora, Ms. Mitali Karwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Jai Upadyay, Mr. Saurabh Jain, Mr. Parth Khandal HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 24/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the appeal lying against the order passed in original is to be sustained, however, the pre-deposit condition is too harsh and the petitioner would not be able to make good of the pre-deposit. More so, the order is wholly illegal and has been passed contrary to the principles of natural justice and is also against the rules. 2. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court, in M/s. K.G. Impex Vs. Union of India & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4518/2025, decided on 09.09.2025, held that filing an [2025:RJ-JP:47441-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-5188/2025] appeal before the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the CESTAT'), is an efficacious alternative remedy. The Court, also relied upon the earlier decision passed in case of M/s Shiv Enterprise Vs. Union of India & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5756/2025, decided on 21.08.2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In Girish Girdhari Lal Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17035/2024, decided on 15.09.2025, one of us in Division Bench also took into consideration the aspect regarding alternative remedy. The judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal; reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 was also taken into consideration. The Co-ordinate Bench, while deciding M/s Shiv Enterprise Vs. Union of India & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5756/2025 at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, vide order dated 21.08.2025, observed as under: "1. There is an alternative remedy available to petitioners by way of appeal before the concerned Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Therefore, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction. 2. Petitions dismissed." 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the pre-deposit amount being huge will have to be taken into consideration by the CESTAT, if it decides to examine the issue of condonation of the pre-deposit. However, it is not right for this Court to pass any appropriate order. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the CESTAT. At this stage, learned counsel states that he has filed an appeal before the CESTAT, but [2025:RJ-JP:47441-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-5188/2025] on account of non-availability of the pre-deposit amount, the appeal is likely defective. 5. As observed hereinabove, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the CESTAT, which may take a decision on the said aspect, after examining the financial condition of the petitioner. 6. All pending applications, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Seema/14