The appellant made an application under Article 226 and moved the Delhi High Court.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 10 9 75 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
On 10 February 1975 a numberice under Section 131 3 of the Customs Act 1962 referred to as the Act was.
The numberice inter alia stated that since the goods were processed ore, number meant for extraction of metallic manganese they ceased to qualify as an ore within the numbermally accepted sense of the term as in item 26 Indian Customs Tariff.
The appellant also asked for a writ of certiorari to quash the numberice.
The Appellate Collector companyfirmed the order of the Assistant Collector.
The Assistant Collector levied duty on the companysignment under Tariff Item 28.
The appellant impeached the aforesaid numberice dated 10 February 1975.
The appel lant thereafter made an application to the Revisional Au thority.
On 3 October 1974 the appellant gave a numberice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code for institution of a suit for recovery of refund.
590 593/1972 passed by the Appellate Collector of Cus toms, Calcutta.
The appellant in the applica tion asked for a writ in the nature of prohibition restrain ing the Opposite party thereto from taking any proceeding pursuant to the impugned numberice.
The appellant also asked for a writ of mandamus number to withhold the excess duty paid by the petitioner and ordered to be refund ed.
The appellant asked for refund and sent reminders to Customs Authorities for refund.
The appellant preferred an appeal.
given to the appellant for revision of the order of refund.
Soli Sorabjee, Ravinder Narain, Talat Ansari and Shri Narain, for the Appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In October 1969 the appellant received a companysignment of ten metric tons of manganese dioxide.
1830 of 1975.
475/75.
The Revisional Authority held that the goods should be assessed under Tariff Item 26 and ordered refund of duty.
P. Raman, Addl.
for India, S.K. Mehta and Girish Chandra, for the Respondent.
The appellant is a manufacturer of dry battery cells.
The numberice thereafter said It, therefore, appears to the Government that the appellate order does number appear to be sustainable.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 10 September 1975 of the Delhi High Court.
