Natural justice requires the same authority to hear and decide; adjudication order set aside and remanded for fresh hearing.

An adjudication order is vitiated where the assessee is heard by one Commissioner but the final order is passed by another, because the authority deciding the matter must be the same authority that heard the party to ensure an effective opportunity of representation. This mismatch breaches the principles of natural justice and renders the order unsustainable. The impugned adjudication was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether an adjudication order is sustainable when the assessee was heard by one Commissioner but the final order was passed by another Commissioner, and whether such defect warranted setting aside the order and remand.

Analysis: The appellants were admittedly heard by one Commissioner, while the impugned adjudication order was issued by another. The decision-maker who signs and passes the order must be the person who hears the party, so that the party has an effective opportunity to present its case before the authority determining the matter. A departure from this requirement amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and vitiates the adjudication.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable for breach of natural justice and was set aside. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent of remand, and the adjudication was reopened for fresh consideration after compliance with the hearing requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed by a different authority than the one who heard the party violates natural justice and cannot be sustained; the proper course is to set aside the order and remit the matter for de novo adjudication after due hearing.

---