Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent, to issue certain clarifications on the petitioner's representations, dated 12.01.2012, 14.04.2012 and 25.04.2012. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the respondent has an obligation to issue such clarifications, as prayed for by the petitioner, under Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, it is seen that Section 37B of Central Excise Act, 1944, states that the Central Board of Excise and Customs, constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963, may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of uniformity in the classification of excisable goods or with respect to levy of duties of excise on such goods, issue such orders, instructions and directions to the Central Excise Officers, as it may deem fit. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that the respondent could issue such clarifications, as prayed for by the petitioner, under Rule 31 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. However, a reading of the Rule 31 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, would show that the Board or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, may issue written instructions providing for any incidental or supplemental matters, consistent with the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been stated that the respondent does not have the power or the authority to issue such clarifications, as prayed for by the petitioner. It has also been stated that certain clarifications had already been issued, in respect of the issues raised by the petitioner, in the representations made by it. 7. It has also been stated that certain clarifications had already been issued, in respect of the issues raised by the petitioner, in the representations made by it. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, and in view of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the relief prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be granted, as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the petitioner has a right to demand the issuance of the clarifications, as prayed for by the petitioner, in its representations, dated 12.01.2012, 14.04.2012 and 25.04.2012, and that there is a concomitant obligation on the part of the respondent to issue such clarifications. 8. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.