https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43976 The writ court declined to decide the merits of the exemption claim or the legality of the seizure because the release of the seized goods was already pending before the competent excise authority. As the authority had asked for supporting documents and the petitioner stated that invoices and other material had been furnished, the court directed fresh consideration of the release request on the basis of the relevant facts and the exemption claim. The authority was required to pass a fresh order within one month after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The dispute was thus left to administrative reconsideration rather than judicial determination on merits. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:56:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43976 The writ court declined to decide the merits of the exemption claim or the legality of the seizure because the release of the seized goods was already pending before the competent excise authority. As the authority had asked for supporting documents and the petitioner stated that invoices and other material had been furnished, the court directed fresh consideration of the release request on the basis of the relevant facts and the exemption claim. The authority was required to pass a fresh order within one month after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The dispute was thus left to administrative reconsideration rather than judicial determination on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43976