Settlement Commission's factual finding on driage loss held conclusive; writ review could not reopen the duty assessment.

The writ court should not reappreciate the Settlement Commission's factual estimation of driage loss in chewing tobacco manufacture where the Commission, as a specialised body, fixed loss at 10% on the materials before it. Its conclusion was treated as conclusive under the governing provision, and judicial review under Article 226 was held unavailable absent perversity or illegality. The Court therefore declined to interfere with the additional duty liability based on that finding, leaving the settlement order intact and the writ petition unsuccessful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court could interfere with the Settlement Commission's determination of driage loss at 10% and the consequent additional duty liability, and whether the settlement order had finality barring interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge was to the Settlement Commission's factual assessment of loss in the manufacture of chewing tobacco, where the petitioner claimed 24% driage and the Department had indicated a lower range. The Court held that the exercise before the Settlement Commission was one of factual estimation based on the materials before it, and that such findings were not open to reappreciation in writ jurisdiction absent perversity or illegality. It further noted that the Settlement Commission acts as a specialised body, its order attains conclusiveness under the governing provision, and judicial review under Article 226 cannot be used to substitute the Court's view for a factual conclusion reached by the Commission.

Conclusion: The fixation of driage loss at 10% was not interfered with, and the writ petition failed.

---