Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Learned counsel for the respondents raised various preliminary objections against the maintainability of the writ petition. Firstly, he contended that the writ petition involves various disputed and complicated questions of fact. This is correct. It is not the case of the petitioner that white cement is known in common and trade parlance as rapid hardening cement. Its case is that white cement possesses the physical properties and chemical composition as those of rapid hardening cement which is included in the sub-head 2502.20. This is disputed by the respondent No. 1 in his replies to the writ petition and rejoinder. Admittedly, white cement manufactured by the J.K. Cement Works has been held to be rapid hardening cement by the Collector, Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The petitioner's case is that the white cement manufactured by it is similar to the white cement manufactured by the said J.K. Cement Works. This is also disputed by the respondent No. 1 in his replies. It is not in dispute that the Collector, Excise (Appeals), New Delhi has held the white cement of J.K. Cement Works as rapid hardening cement on the basis of reports of various tests filed before the competent authority by it. The petitioner has filed certain reports, papers No. A9/6-7 and A10/4, and statements, papers No. A5/40 (unsigned) & A9/5 & A9/11 (unsigned). They have been denied and contested by the respondents. Thus several disputed and complicated questions of fact are involved in this case and they cannot be decided by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.