Judgment Narasimham, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Tata Iron and Steel Company for quashing the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. Jamshedpur, dated the 28th March 1964 (Annexure V), the appellate order of the Collector of Central Excise, dated the 23rd February, 1965 (Annexure X) and the revisional order of the Government of India, dated the 10th September. 1965 (Annexure VIII), rejecting the petitioners claim for refund in respect of excise duty paid for steel ingots manufactured from scrap obtained from duty paid steel ingots or products The petitioner baed his claim on notification GSR 76 of 1962 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dated the 24th April, 1962 (Annexure I). The facts of this case are very similar to the facts in C.W.J.C. No. 1239 of 1965=(AIR 1967 Pat 375) disposed of today and hence it is not necessary for me to elaborate at great length the various points dealt with in the judgment given in that case. All the authorities and the party also are agreed that refund can be claimed only if the scrap out of which the steel ingots were made was itself obtained from duty paid steel ingots or products. The Assistant Collector thought that the relevant notification was No. 53 of 1964, dated 1-3-1964 (Annexure W), but the Collector on appeal (Annexure X) rightly pointed out that the correct notification is notification No. 76 of 1982, dated the 24th April, 1962. But both the Assistant Collector and the Collector proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner failed to prove the necessary facts to establish its claim for refund. I may quote paragraph 4 of the Collectors order in appeal (Annexure X): "The papers of the case of the claim under appeal also no where show that any ingot which paid duty was produced out of iron and steel scrap only. Their own version is that old iron and steel scrap was utilised along with mixture of pig iron to make it into steel ingots". It does not appear that either the Assistant Collector or the Collector gave the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence to show that some of the ingots, at any rate, were manufactured out of old iron and steel scrap obtained from duty paid steel ingots and products. It does not appear that either the Assistant Collector or the Collector gave the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence to show that some of the ingots, at any rate, were manufactured out of old iron and steel scrap obtained from duty paid steel ingots and products. As pointed out In the judgment in C. W J. C. No 1239 of 1966=( AIR 1967 Pat 378 ), the approach of the assessing authority should be quasi judicial and an aggrieved assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to adduce all available evidence in support of his claim for refund In the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it has been urged that accurate records are maintained by the petitioner showing the quantity of steel scrap obtained from duty paid ingots which were subsequently utilised in the manufacture of ingots These facts alleged by the petitioner have been controverted in the counter-affidavit filed by Sri P. N Sen on behalf of the department This Court in its exercise of writ jurisdiction will not enter into disputed questions of fact. These should he properly agitated before the taxing authorities and final decision obtained For the reasons already discussed in the judgment in C W J C No. 1239 of 1965 = (AIR 1967 Pat 375), 1 must hold that the petitioner did not get a fair hearing in respect of its claim for refund from any of the assessing authorities, though it was entitled to the same The orders will therefore have to he quashed. 2. In this case also as in C.W.J.C. No. 1239 of 1965 = (AIR 1967 Pat 375). a civil suit has been filed, but for the reasons fully discussed in the latter case the filing of the civil suit will not be a bar to our granting relief to the petitioner where failure on the part of a quasi judicial authority to observe the rules of natural justice has been established. 3. for these reasons, the order of the Assistant Collector. Central Excise. Jamshedpur, dated 28-3-1964 (Annexure V), the appellate order of the Collector of Central Excise. 3. for these reasons, the order of the Assistant Collector. Central Excise. Jamshedpur, dated 28-3-1964 (Annexure V), the appellate order of the Collector of Central Excise. dated 23 2 1965 (Annexure X), and the revisional order of the Government of India, dated 10th September 1965 (Annexure VIII), are all quashed and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is directed to re-admit the petitioners claim for refund and dispose of it according to law bearing in mind the observations contained in this judgment and in the judgment in C. W. J. C. No 1239 of 1965=(AIR 1967 Pat 375). In the circumstances, there will be no order for costs. A.B.N.Sinha, J. 4 I agree.