( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) BY this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned demand. Learned Counsel for the petitioners says that no order giving rise to the impugned demand was ever served upon them by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioners are not aware as to which type of demand has been raised. ( 3 ) IN Para 1 (d) of the counter affidavit, it is averred that Shri Cheddi Lal (Petitioner No. 1) had cultivated, 1. 98 acres in five plots during the first crop year 1975-76, which was registered on the survey book on 5-12-1975, in survey book No. 0031 at Pages 6 and 7 against SI. No. 2/6. It is added that at the time of taking annual return on 26-5-1976, a quantity of 504 G (sic) leaf, 150 kg. stems and 186 kg, dust was duly verified by the Inspector of Central Excise, Karvi, which was acknowledged by the curers on survey. It is further averred that the DDs after its acknowledgement by the cursers on the counterfoils, were delivered to the curers under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for depositing the amount of duty amounting to Rs. 2,520/and rs. 780/- respectively with the S. B. I. Karvi, which the curers failed to deposit, and then the impugned recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. ( 4 ) NO order passed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (sic) or under any other provisions, has been annexed to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents. ( 5 ) THE Counsel for the petitioners urges that the petitioners have statutory right to claim assessment under Item No. 4 (1) of the 1st Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and no such assessment having been made by the respondents, the impugned recovery proceedings are invalid. ( 6 ) THE petition was filed as early as in the year 1985. No order giving rise to the impugned demand has been annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, which could not be filed by the petitioners because they clearly averred that they have no knowledge of any order passed against them. They are unable to understand as to how the impugned demand has been raised against them. No order giving rise to the impugned demand has been annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, which could not be filed by the petitioners because they clearly averred that they have no knowledge of any order passed against them. They are unable to understand as to how the impugned demand has been raised against them. ( 7 ) ON these facts the petition is disposed of finally with the observation that if the petitioners make a representation stating all these facts to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Allahabad range, Allahabad, within 10 days from the date of this order he will decide the same by a speaking order within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon him by the petitioners. ( 8 ) SO far as the plea of staying the impugned recovery is concerned the petitioners are at liberty to make that submission before Respondent No. 1 himself. .