https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45651 An excise writ challenge was held not maintainable because the original demand had merged into the appellate and revisional orders, and relief in writ jurisdiction could not be sought without challenging those higher orders and impleading the relevant authorities. On natural justice, the levy under Rule 9(2) was upheld since the assessee received notice, filed a written reply, was personally heard, and had access to seized materials; cross-examination was not treated as essential on these facts. The duty assessment was also left undisturbed because the dispute turned on factual questions about excisability and production, which were not suitable for writ determination, and the assessment was not shown to be arbitrary on the record. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:43:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45651 An excise writ challenge was held not maintainable because the original demand had merged into the appellate and revisional orders, and relief in writ jurisdiction could not be sought without challenging those higher orders and impleading the relevant authorities. On natural justice, the levy under Rule 9(2) was upheld since the assessee received notice, filed a written reply, was personally heard, and had access to seized materials; cross-examination was not treated as essential on these facts. The duty assessment was also left undisturbed because the dispute turned on factual questions about excisability and production, which were not suitable for writ determination, and the assessment was not shown to be arbitrary on the record. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Sep 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45651