SHREE RAJASTHAN SYNTEX LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition along with other writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule annexed, raise a common question as to whether the manufacture of blended spun yarn produced by the petitioner is covered under Tariff Item 18 III (i) or (ii).

(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that the blended product does not contain any man -made fibre of non -cellulosic origin whereas the contention of the respondent is that it contains man -made fibre of non -cellulosic origin. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise has passed an order treating the product under Item 18 III Clause (ii) and on that basis demands have been issued. The petitioners by this writ petition have sought quashing of the order of the Assistant Collector as well as the consequential demands issued by respondent No. 5, Superintendent of Central Excise.

(3.) IT may be stated that the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners strenuously urged with all emphasis at their command that the matter can be disposed of by this Court as the matter does not involve any disputed questions of fact. On the basis of the; pleadings of the parties, the Court can conveniently arrive at the finding that the petitioners did not use any manmade fibre of non -cellulosic origin in their manufactured product. On the basis of pleadings of the parties there would only arise a question of law and not a question of fact. On this aspect as well quite lengthy arguments were advanced before me but I feel that the matter requires serious consideration which will involve definitely a question of fact and the entire case depends on this particular finding as to whether the petitioners' product contains any man -made fibre of non -cellulosic origin or the petitioner simply used non -cellulosic waste covered under Item 18 IV. It may be stated that the non -cellulosic waste which is used by the petitioners is a waste of different stages and naturally its form and character would be of different nature. Whether that waste undergoes any process or not, culminating into fibre or not, would be questions which would need determination in the case and all these questions would be questions of such a nature which may require evidence in the form of affidavits or otherwise. The petitioners have produced in this Court some material and documents in the form of affidavit and extract of treatises. All that material if produced can be examined by the Assistant Collector and he may apply his mind to whatever material the petitioners furnished before him. It would not be proper for this Court to undertake a detailed enquiry regarding the process or processes which are undertaken for the purpose of blending non -cellulosic waste or producing cellulosic spun yarn. It would be proper that the parties may place the entire evidence before the Assistant Collector so that he may examine all that material and arrive at the finding which is necessary to determine the controversy in question. So I am of the opinion, that I need not enter into the merits of the matter and decide the controversy.