1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 6607 of 2008 TIRUPATI FIBRES AND INDUSTRIES LTD. V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Mr. SANJEEV JOHARI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RISHABH SANCHETI for Mr.VK MATHUR, for the respondent. Date of Order : 13.5.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel made available for our perusal the Central Excise Tariff which is relevant for the present period being 1983. Relevant sub item (III) of Item 18 (relevant part thereof) reads as under: “III. Cellulosic spun yarn: Yarn, in which man-made fibre of cellulosic origin predominates in weight and, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power- (i) not containing, or containing not more than one-sixth by weight of non-cellulosic fibre calculated on the total fibre content. (ii) containing more than one-sixth by weight of non-cellulosic fibre calculated on the total fibre content.” The controversy in the present case sought to be raised 2 by the petitioner precisely is, as to whether the commodity is to be classified under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (II)? From reading of the above entry, what we find is, that the precise dispute is about extent of non-cellulosic fibre content on the total fibre content, and the determining factor is as to whether it is not more than one-sixth by weight, or is more than one-sixth. In this regard no specific factual foundation has been laid in the writ petition, as to whether the non-cellulosic fibre is up to one-sixth or beyond one-sixth. This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect of the matter is, that this would be a seriously disputed question, as to whether the non-cellulosic fibre content on the total complete fibre content by weight exceeds one sixth or not. It is a disputed question of fact which can not be decided in writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the tribunal in Banswara Syntex Limited, copy thereof has been placed as Annexure-8, and submitted that the same has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Suffice it to say that in that case it does not appear that this aspect has been considered for adjudication, and as such, the same is of no assistance for the purpose of entertaining the present writ petition. 3 The writ petition, therefore,is dismissed. It is clarified that this dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner in availing such legal remedy which may be available to him under law. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /jgoyal/