Abatement claim on destroyed goods requires a reasoned Commissioner order, not a mere Superintendent communication.

An abatement claim for duty on goods allegedly destroyed in unforeseen circumstances could not be treated as rejected merely by a Superintendent's communication. That communication was only an intimation of rejection and not a speaking order on the assessee's petition. The Commissioner was required to hear the assessee and decide the claim afresh by passing a reasoned, appealable order. The communication was held to have no legal effect, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the abatement claim on account of destruction of goods could be treated as rejected by a communication from the Superintendent, and whether the matter required a speaking order by the Commissioner.

Analysis: The claim was for abatement of duty on goods alleged to have been destroyed in unforeseen circumstances. The communication from the Superintendent merely conveyed that the claim had been rejected and did not amount to a speaking order on the assessee's petition. The Commissioner was required to decide the claim himself by passing a reasoned and appealable order after hearing the assessee.

Conclusion: The communication was held to have no legal effect, and the appeal was allowed with a direction to the Commissioner to reconsider the abatement claim afresh in accordance with law.

---