Natural justice and adjournment discretion: refusal of postponement did not invalidate the hearing or support revision relief.

Repeated opportunities of personal hearing had been given, and the refusal of adjournment by the Appellate Collector was treated as a matter of discretion rather than a denial of natural justice. Because the petitioners did not avail the scheduled hearing and their advocate was expected to argue on that date, the complaint of procedural unfairness was rejected. On the facts, the contention that the goods were unfinished was also found unacceptable, and the revision application failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision application was liable to be allowed on the ground that the petitioners were denied natural justice because the Appellate Collector declined adjournment and proceeded without hearing them.

Analysis: The petitioners had been given opportunities of personal hearing but did not avail them. The request for adjournment was within the discretion of the Appellate Collector, and refusal of adjournment did not, by itself, amount to denial of natural justice, particularly when the advocate ought to have argued the matter on the scheduled date. The plea that the goods were unfinished was also found unacceptable on the facts.

Conclusion: The plea of denial of natural justice was rejected and the revision application failed.

---