Writ jurisdiction survives withdrawn revision; textile classification demand fails when based on irrelevant material and no legal evidence.

A writ petition was maintainable despite the petitioner's earlier revision under the Act, because the revisional remedy was discretionary and its withdrawal did not oust Article 226 jurisdiction; the preliminary objection was rejected. On the merits, the textile classification and demand could not stand because the authorities relied on a sample and warehouse register that were not shown to be relevant to the goods in dispute, were not properly available for scrutiny, and were used without a fair opportunity to meet the material. The finding was vitiated by irrelevant evidence and breach of natural justice, so the impugned orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was barred because the petitioner had initially pursued and later withdrawn the revision remedy under the Act; and (ii) whether the demand order classifying the textile item under Tariff Item No. 19I(1) could stand when it was founded on irrelevant material and no legal evidence.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was barred because the petitioner had initially pursued and later withdrawn the revision remedy under the Act;

Analysis: The availability or earlier invocation of a revisional remedy did not destroy the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The revision was only a discretionary statutory remedy, and the Court had already permitted withdrawal of the revision and issued rule nisi. In the circumstances, refusal to examine the merits would have caused injustice.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the demand order classifying the textile item under Tariff Item No. 19I(1) could stand when it was founded on irrelevant material and no legal evidence.

Analysis: The authorities relied on a sample and a grey warehouse register that were not shown to be relevant to the manufactured article in dispute. The register was not available for effective scrutiny, and the petitioner had no proper opportunity to meet the material used against it. The finding was therefore vitiated by reliance on irrelevant evidence and by breach of natural justice, and the matter could not be validly re-determined on the existing record.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The demand and classification orders could not be sustained, and the writ petition succeeded with the impugned orders set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A classification or demand order cannot be sustained when it rests on irrelevant material and no legal evidence, and a writ court may grant relief notwithstanding an earlier statutory revision where refusal to interfere would cause injustice.

---