JUDGMENT : The respondents manufacture marble agglomerated blocks by crushing lumps or chips of marble, mixing pigments and binding agents like polyester, resin and white cement with crushed marble, pouring the mixture into moulds and applying pressure thereto. It is not in dispute that the process is a process of manufacture. What is contended by the respondents is that the properties and characteristics of agglomerated marble remain the same as those of excavated marble. 2. The respondents were served with a notice to show cause why the agglomerated marble should not be exigible to excise duty under Tariff Heading 68.07. The respondents approached the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the High Court allowed their Writ Petition holding that the respondent's product, agglomerated marble slabs or tiles, was not exigible to excise duty. The excise authorities are in appeal by special leave. 3. We find that the question involved is a question of fact, "Whether the properties and characteristics of agglomerated marble remain the same as those of excavated marble?" We find that the High Court has gone into questions of fact to resolve this question. The resolution of questions of fact such as this should, we think, be best left to the fact finding authorities constituted under the relevant statute. The High Court should not have interfered, in a writ petition, at the stage of the show cause notice to take over that fact finding investigation. 4. At the stage when special leave was granted by this Court the excise authorities were permitted to proceed with the assessment but not to enforce the assessment order without permission. We are told that an assessment order has accordingly been passed on 16-8-1994. It is the case of the respondents that the assessment order was passed without giving to them the opportunity of a hearing. This is disputed. We do not propose to go into the correctness or otherwise of this case. It is enough to say that it is in the interest of justice that that assessment order should stand cancelled and that the Assistant Collector of Excise concerned should give to the respondents the opportunity of a hearing and then pass a fresh assessment order. Needless to say, it shall be open to the respondents to challenge the same, if so, advised. Needless to say, it shall be open to the respondents to challenge the same, if so, advised. It will be open to the respondents to place before the Assistant Collector such evidence as they may deem fit and such evidence shall be considered before the assessment order is made. We direct the respondents to appear before the Assistant Collector on 24th October, 1994 at 12.00 noon. In the event that that date and time does not suit the Assistant Collector, he shall intimate to the respondents a fresh date on that day. The Asstt. Collector shall pass the assessment order without reference to the judgment of the High Court and his earlier assessment orders. Nor shall he take anything that we have said in this order as reflecting on the merits. 5. The appeal is allowed as aforestated. The judgment and order of the High Court under appeal is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.