Non-speaking duty demand communication cannot bar scrutiny; pending show cause notice must be adjudicated on merits after hearing.

A non-speaking communication directing payment of duty did not foreclose appellate scrutiny where the underlying demand had not been finally adjudicated. The pending show cause notice alleging wrongful availment of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required a reasoned decision on merits after hearing the assessee. As no confirmed demand had emerged from a speaking order, disposal of the appeal as a nullity without such hearing was unjustified. The matter was therefore restored to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication of the notice in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal against the Superintendent's letter directing deposit of duty was maintainable, and whether the pending show cause notice required adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee.

Analysis: A decision or order under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is appealable, but a mere communication which is not a speaking adjudication order may not by itself constitute a proper basis for refusing appellate scrutiny where the underlying dispute remains alive. The record showed that the show cause notice alleging wrongful availment of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had not been adjudicated, and no confirmed demand had emerged from a reasoned order. In such circumstances, disposal of the appeal as a nullity without hearing was unjustified, and the matter had to be sent back for proper adjudication of the notice.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable to the extent that the matter required decision on merits, and the assessee succeeded in obtaining a remand for adjudication after grant of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was restored to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision on the pending demand notice in accordance with law, with opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the underlying demand has not been finally adjudicated, a non-speaking communication directing payment does not justify foreclosure of the assessee's remedy, and the authority must decide the demand on merits after hearing the assessee.

---