Judgment Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. 1. These five writ applications have been filed on behalf of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the `TISCO) for quashing the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Collector), the Collector of Central Excise, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) and the Government of India in exercise of its revisional powers under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act), rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for refund of different amounts which have been charged as excise duty and which according to the petitioner were not liable to be charged, between the months of March, 1967 to July, 1967 over its despatches of steel ingots. Five writ applications have been filed because the refund claimed in all the writ applications relates to different months, that is from March to July, 1967. By consent of the parties, C.W.J. No 4 of 1971, which relates to the month of May, 1967 has been heard as the main case. 2. * * 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 35 of the Act before the Collector which was dismissed by the order dated the 19th November, 1968 which was conveyed to the petitioner by a letter dated the 14th February, 1969. A copy of the order of the Collector is Annexure `4 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Central Government under section 36 of the Act. The said revision was heard by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, in the Minimising of Finance, on the 26th March, 1970. According to the petitioner, during the course of the hearing of the revision applications, the Joint Secretary asked as to what was the evidence in support of the claim for refund in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner, by letter No. OI/EX/4/35/298, dated the 30th July, 1970, set out the details of the materials in its possession which proved that the petitioner was entitled to claim exemption under a notification, dated the 1st March, 1974 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). A copy of the said notification is Annexure `5 to the writ petition, and a copy of the letter dated 30th July, 1970 is Annexure `6 to the writ petition. 4. The notification on the basis of which the petitioner claims exemption is in the following words : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts steel ingots falling under Item No. 26 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), produced from fresh unused steel melting scrap, exclusively or in admixture with any other material, from so such of the duty of excise as is proved to have been on such fresh unused steel melting scrap under Item No. 26 of the said Schedule, provided that no set off of duty has already been availed of in respect of such scrap. 5. In the letter addressed by the petitioner to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Annexure `6) it was stated as follows :- ...the cut ends...of which were sent back by the Indian Tube Co. to our works showing the receipt of the cut bars and that they were despatched to our Steel Melting Shop No. 3. Records are also available in our Steel Melting Shop No. 3 showing the receipt of the cut bars from the Medium and Light Structural Mill into their stocks for the purpose of charging them into their furnaces. We would respectfully suggest that the local Central Excise authorities at Jamshedpur be directed by the learned Joint Secretary to verify these records, if a verification is considered necessary, and to report to him the outcome. In the said letter it was further stated that the petitioner was the sole supplier of the seamless blooms to the Tube Company. We would respectfully suggest that the local Central Excise authorities at Jamshedpur be directed by the learned Joint Secretary to verify these records, if a verification is considered necessary, and to report to him the outcome. In the said letter it was further stated that the petitioner was the sole supplier of the seamless blooms to the Tube Company. It was also stated that when the outbars we are returned from the Tube Company intimations of reentry (in the TISCOS Works) of the cut bars were given to the local Excise authorities or receipt of the goods inside the TISCOS Works, and that all the cutbars were converted, along with other items of scrap or molten meter, into the steel ingots, out of which steel products were made and excise duty was paid on such steel products, including ingot duty, and, therefore the petitioner was made to pay the duty twice. The attention of the Central Government was drawn to its aforesaid notification, dated the 1st March, 1964 (Annexure `5) under which the petitioner were entitled to claim exemption. The Central Government, however, by its order, dated the 7th September, 1970, rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners (vide Annexure `7). 6. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order was passed by the Central Government taking an erroneous view of the aforesaid notification and without proper consideration of the materials which were in possession of the petitioner to support its claim for refund. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that in the aforesaid order the Joint Secretary was not justified in observing : In the absence of specific documentary evidence to prove that the scraps in question were duty paid, the petitioners claim cannot be accepted According to the petitioner, it was mentioned at the time of the hearing of the revision petition applications on the 26th March, 1970, that it was prepared to produce all relevent documents and materials to show that its contention and claim regarding refund were borne out from the records in his custody. The same stand was reiterated by it in its aforesaid letter dated 30th July, 1970 (Annexure `6), but the Joint Secretary has not mentioned anything about the said letter, nor did at any stage ask the petitioner to produce those records in support of its claim. 7. * * * 8. The same stand was reiterated by it in its aforesaid letter dated 30th July, 1970 (Annexure `6), but the Joint Secretary has not mentioned anything about the said letter, nor did at any stage ask the petitioner to produce those records in support of its claim. 7. * * * 8. The petitioner has also produced some documents before this Court to show that it had paid excise duty over the seamless blooms despatched to the Tube Company and cuttings etc. had been returned by the Trade company to the petitioner, for which records have been maintained. It was, therefore, just and proper that the Central Government, before passing the final order, should have directed the petitioner to produce all relevant materials in support of its claim that the returned cuttings etc. had been malted and steel ingots had been prepared over which duty had already been paid. On such records being produced, the Central Government had to consider as to whether the petitioner has entitled to exemption under the aforesaid notification, dated the 1st March, 1964. As the petitioner did not get any such opportunity, I am of the vie that its statutory revision was not been heared in accordance with law, and the petitioner has been prejudiced. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order of the Central Government is fit to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be given an opportunity to produce all the relevent documents and materials before the Central Government in support of its claim l for refund under the aforesaid notification, dated the 1st March, 1964. It will however, be open to the Central Government either to direct the petitioner to produce the relevent documents and materials before it, or to direct any of its officers at Jamshedpur to verify from the records of the petitioner and other relevant documents the assertion of the petitioner and to find out as to how for the claim for exemption is borne out from those materials. 9. In the result, C.W.J.C. No. 4 of 1971 is allowed and the order of the Central Government, dated the 7th September, 1970 (Annexure 7") is quashed. 9. In the result, C.W.J.C. No. 4 of 1971 is allowed and the order of the Central Government, dated the 7th September, 1970 (Annexure 7") is quashed. It will, however, be open to the petitioner to rely on the aforesaid notification, dated the 1st March, 1964, or any other notification or rule under which the petitioner may be entitled to claim exemption during the relevant period. There will be no order as to costs. 10. For the foregoing reasons, C.W.J.C. Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 of 1971 are also allowed, which relate to the months of July, June, March and April, 1967, respectively, and the orders of the Central Government (Annexure ` 7" to those applications) are quashed. In those cases also the Central Government will follow the directions given in respect of C.W.J.C. No. 4 of 1971. There will be no order as to costs in these cases also.