S.P.BHARUCHA, J. (1) DELAY condoned in the special leave petitions. (2) LEAVE granted. (3) THESE appeals challenge the correctness of the same judgment and order. The judgment and order was passed on several writ petitions and it allowed those writ petitions. (4) THE Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940, was enacted to make financial provision for the carrying on by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research of its objects and, for this purpose, to impose on certain articles a cess by way of customs duty on export, the proceeds whereof were to be paid to that Council. Section 3 of the Act imposes the cess at the rate of one-half of one per cent ad valorem on all articles included in the Schedule which are exported from India. Section 5-A makes the provisions of the Customs Act, a 1962, and the Rules and Regulations thereunder applicable in relation to the levy and collection of the cess on all articles included in the Schedule as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of customs duty. Item 7 of the Schedule lists: "Fish". (5) THE writ petitioners are exporters of prawns and shrimps. Such exporters have been made liable to pay the cess ever since the Act was enacted. The writ petitioners, however, in the year 1998 filed the writ petitions to contend that prawns and shrimps were not covered by the word "fish" and that, therefore, they were not liable to pay the cess on the export of prawns and shrimps. (6) IT was, among other things, contended on behalf of the respondents to the writ petitions that the writ petitioners should be relegated to an alternate remedy. The High Court declined to do so. It quoted the judgment of this Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. CCE thus: "WHERE sufficient evidence is placed before the writ court for an unambiguous conclusion upon technical matters to be reached by the authorities the court in exercise of its jurisdiction can come to such a conclusion and not relegate the parties to an alternative remedy before the Department." (7) IT is not disputed that, let alone sufficient evidence, there was no evidence whatever before the High Court on the basis of which it could come to the conclusion that prawns and shrimps were not "fish" in common parlance. All that has been repeatedly stated in the judgment is exemplified by this sentence: "THERE can be no gainsaying that judicial notice can be taken of a fact that a common man treats fish and prawns as two different articles...." We are unable to take such judicial notice. (8) WE are of the view that the High Court should not have entertained these writ petitions and should have relegated the writ petitioners to the alternate remedy. (9) THAT an alternative remedy by way of an appeal is available is clear from Section 5-A, which we have quoted, and, indeed, the learned Additional Solicitor-General appearing for the Union of India expressly affirmed this. (10) WE must, therefore, direct that the writ petitioners may file appeals under the provisions of the Customs Act within eight weeks from today. If that is done and the requisite predeposits are made, the respondents to the writ petitions shall not raise any objections, including those of limitation, to the maintainability of the appeals. It is expected, in the circumstances, that the appeals will then be disposed of on merits. (11) WE make it clear that we express no opinion on the merits of the case on either side. (12) THE bank guarantees that have been furnished by the writ petitioners pending the disposal of these appeals shall be kept alive until such time as the predeposits required for the appeals under the Customs Act are made. (13) THE civil appeals are allowed accordingly. (14) NO order as to costs.