The court cannot question the wisdom of the Government's policy.

Heard both the parties.

2.In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Declaration declaring that the proviso to Central Excise Notification No. 253/82-C.E., dated 8-11-1982 are illegal, arbitrary, void, unconstitutional and unenforceable insofar as they affect the petitioner herein.

2.The impugned notification dated 8-11-1982 runs as follows :

"Notification No. 253/82-C.E., dated 8-11-1982

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957

Provided that no such exemption shall apply

(i) if unprocessed cotton fabrics, falling under sub-item I(a) of the said Item No. 19, on which the duty of excise leviable thereon under any of the aforesaid two Acts, either in whole or in part, are subjected to any process or processes specified in the said Table, within the factory in which the said unprocessed fabrics have been produced, or

(ii) if cotton fabrics falling under sub-item I of the said Item No. 19, are subjected to any process or processes specified in the said Table within the same factory in which they have been subjected to any process other than the processes specified in the said Table.'Of course, the petitioner is challenging only the proviso to the said notification dated 8-11-1992.

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that by an impugned proviso, what was exempted under the notification dated 8-11-1992 has been denied unreasonably and arbitrarily and without any valid reason in law. Hence the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of Declaration as prayed for.

4.Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents per contra, contends that decision of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court 1989 (41) ELT 224 (Swadeshi Dyeing & Bleaching Mills P. Ltd.v.Union of India), while analysing the articles behind the proviso, it is held as follows :

Shri Kantawala submitted that the Collector has no jurisdiction to construe the two exemption notifications and conclude that the two units are one and the same. The learned counsel submitted that the two exemption notifications granted exemption from payment of duty in respect of processes carried out with the aid of power or steam in one case and in other case processes without the aid of power. It was contended that there is nothing wrong for one person to set up two units, one where the process is carried out without the aid of power and the other with the aid of power and it is not permissible for the Collector to conclude that the two units are really composite one and can be termed as 'factory' within the definition of the Act. We are unable to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. The expression 'Factory' has been defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and means any premises including precincts thereof, in which or in any part of which excisable goods other than salt are manufactured. It is necessary to ascertain what was the process carried out in these two units to appreciate the purpose of service of show cause notice on the two units. The customers hand over grey fabrics for the purpose of processing and only the processed fabric has got a saleable value. Initially, it is necessary to carry out the process of bleaching and mercerising. The process of bleaching and mercerising is carried out by non-power aided unit by hand processing and while the grey fabric is still in wet condition, it is transferred to the power operated unit for carrying out the process of finishing, calendering, stentering etc. After completion of these processes, the fabric is packed and returned back to customers, and it is only such processed fabric which can be sold in the market. Now perusal of exemption Notification 253/82, dated November 8, 1982 makes it clear that if unprocessed cotton fabrics are subjected to any processes specified in the said table, that is calendering or stentering w