Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded on the ground that the appellant was not afforded an effective personal hearing and the adjudicating authority had not considered the request for adjournment.
Analysis: The appeal concerned a demand of duty and penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The record showed that the adjudicating authority had not granted an effective opportunity of hearing and had not dealt with the appellant's request for adjournment. The Board circular bearing on the issue also had relevance to the controversy. In these circumstances, and without entering into the merits, the proper course was to set aside the order and remit the matter for reconsideration after following the principles of natural justice.
Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration after granting due opportunity of hearing.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of remand, and the adjudication was required to be reconsidered in accordance with natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order passed without effective personal hearing and without fair consideration of a request for adjournment is liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh decision in observance of natural justice.