https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44779 The writ petition challenged a demand on the basis that no underlying order had been served and that assessment under the relevant tariff item had not been made. The High Court did not decide the legality of the demand or the recovery proceedings on merits. It disposed of the petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the Superintendent, Central Excise, who was directed to decide the matter by a speaking order after service of a certified copy of the order. The dispute was thus left to departmental decision-making without any merits determination. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:11:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44779 The writ petition challenged a demand on the basis that no underlying order had been served and that assessment under the relevant tariff item had not been made. The High Court did not decide the legality of the demand or the recovery proceedings on merits. It disposed of the petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the Superintendent, Central Excise, who was directed to decide the matter by a speaking order after service of a certified copy of the order. The dispute was thus left to departmental decision-making without any merits determination. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44779