Natural justice in differential duty demands required fresh decision after the assessee was denied a hearing.

A demand for differential duty cannot be sustained where the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to explain objections, including the plea that input duty was wrongly included in the assessable value. The adjudicatory order was therefore unsustainable on the record and the matter had to be reconsidered on merits after hearing the assessee. The order was set aside and remitted to the jurisdictional Range Superintendent for fresh decision after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for differential duty could be sustained when the assessee was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the Superintendent, and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision on merits.

Analysis: The challenge centered on the Superintendent's direction to pay differential duty without hearing the assessee. The record showed that the assessee had not been given an opportunity to explain its objections, including the plea that input duty had been wrongly included while arriving at the assessable value and the reliance placed on the decision in Dai Ichi Karkaria. In these circumstances, the order could not be sustained as it stood, and the dispute required reconsideration after giving the assessee a fair opportunity of being heard.

Conclusion: The order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---