K.S. Hegde, J.
1. This petition is misconceived for more reasons than one. The petitioner is a manufacturer of different varieties of paper. He commenced manufacturing papers in about the year 1959. One variety of paper which he manufactures is known by the name 'M. G. White Poster Paper'. Excise duty was levied on the manufacture of this paper from 1959 to 1961 under Section 3 read with Entry 17(3) of Schedule I of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In about the middle of 1961, the authorities under the Central Excises and Salt Act, felt that the petitioner was short-levied in respect of the manufacture in question. They took the view that the goods in question fall within entry 17(4) which is subject to higher rate of duty. Accordingly, on 30-8-61, the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, wrote to the petitioner intimating that for the period from 23-3-61 to 8-7-61, excise duty will be levied on the manufacture of the papers in question, as falling under entry 17(4). Thereafter, on 31-8-61, he issued a demand notice under Rule 10 claiming a sum of Rs. 16,577.33 as difference in duty due from the petitioner for the period mentioned above. Aggrieved by this demand notice, the petitioner took up the matter unsuccessfully to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise affirmed the demand made by the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise on 31-8-61. Thereafter the petitioner took up the matter in appeal to the Collector of Central Excise. The Collector elaborately went into the question whether the paper manufactured comes within entry 17(4). The sample of the papers manufactured were produced before him. After examining all the materials placed before him, the Collector came to the conclusion that the paper in question comes within entry 17(4). The petitioner did not go up in revision to the Central Government under Section 36, on the other hand, he has come up to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, with the prayer to quash the letter written by the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, on 30-8-61.
2. The letter impugned in these proceedings is not a judicial order. Nor does it affect the rights of the petitioner. It merely intimates to the petitioner that the Central Excise authorities are of the opinion that the paper manufactured by the petitioner falls within entry 17(4). Such an intimation cannot be quashed in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution. On the other hand, what really aggrieves the petitioner is the demand made on 31-8-61. In this petition, the demand in question has not been impugned.'
3. That apart, the finding of the Collector of Central Excise that the paper manufactured falls within the entry 17(4) is essentially a finding of fact. The Collector has given good reasons in support of his finding. There is no error on the face of the order of the Collector. Whether his finding is factually correct or not is not a matter that can be canvassed in this proceeding.
4. The only other grievance of Shri M. Krishnaswamy the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the assessing authority as well as the Collector had ignored the communication of the Central Board of Revenue in letter No. F. No. DA/LLC. B-3/57 dated 8th May, 1957. That letter is not before us. If there is any truth in this contention, then, the more appropriate course that the petitioner should have adopted is to take up the matter in revision to the Government under Section 36.
5. It was contended by Sri M. Krishnaswamy that the Central Excise Authority had no competence to levy additional duty retrospectively for the period mentioned earlier, This contention is opposed to Rule 10 of the rules framed under the Central Excise Act. It is not the case of Shri Krishnaswamy that rule 10 is invalid. If rule 10 is valid, as in our opinion it is, then the Central Excise Authorities had competence to make the additional levy. The fact that manufacturer cannot pass on the duty in question to his customers, is altogether an irrelevant circumstance.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-.