Appeal against a notice held not maintainable, with direction for expeditious readjudication and a reasoned order.

An appeal does not lie against a mere notice, so the challenge was held not maintainable. Given the delay in passing a fresh order after remand, the Tribunal used its procedural powers to protect the appellant from further hardship and directed appearance before the adjudicating authority. The authority was required to hear the appellant, consider the evidence and submissions, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated time. The appellant may seek further remedy only after the fresh adjudication, if permissible in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal lay against the notice under challenge and, if not maintainable, what consequential direction should be issued to secure expeditious readjudication.

Analysis: The challenge was found to be directed against a notice, against which no appeal would lie. In view of the long delay in passing a readjudication order after the earlier remand, the Tribunal exercised its procedural powers to avoid further hardship and directed the appellant to appear before the adjudicating authority. The authority was required to hear the appellant, consider the evidence and submissions, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable and the appellant was directed to pursue the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended with a direction for expeditious readjudication by the original authority, leaving the appellant to seek further remedy only after the fresh order, if permissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal does not lie against a mere notice, and in an exceptional case the Tribunal may invoke its procedural powers to direct expeditious readjudication with a reasoned order.

---