Court sets aside order, grants stay on payment pending full due amount tender. Chief Commissioner may issue fresh notice.

The court set aside the order issued without disclosing allegations to the petitioner, granting a stay on payment pending full due amount tender. The Chief Commissioner may issue a fresh notice, ensuring petitioner's awareness of material against them. The constitutionality challenge of the notification was left for future review.

---

---

Issues:
1. Lack of disclosure of proposal and allegations against the petitioner.
2. Alleged shortage of goods and demand of excise duty.
3. Notice issued by Chief Commissioner and subsequent order.
4. Compliance with the notification of March 21, 2014.
5. Lack of meaningful representation and material confrontation with the petitioner.
6. Setting aside the impugned order and stay on payment.
7. Entitlement to issue a fresh notice and constitutionality challenge.

1. Lack of disclosure of proposal and allegations against the petitioner:
The petitioner raised concerns regarding an order made by the Chief Commissioner without providing a copy of the proposal forwarded by the Durgapur Commissionerate. The petitioner was not informed of the allegations against them contained in the proposal, leading to a lack of transparency in the process.

2. Alleged shortage of goods and demand of excise duty:
Following a raid at the petitioner's manufacturing facility, a substantial shortage of goods was visually estimated, leading to a demand of excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,50,05,658. The petitioner did not object to the payment under the condition that it would be subject to adjudication regarding the shortage of goods.

3. Notice issued by Chief Commissioner and subsequent order:
A notice was issued to the petitioner in November 2015, requiring them to show cause regarding the allegations. The petitioner responded in February 2016, highlighting the lack of access to the Durgapur Commissionerate's proposal. Subsequently, an order was passed based on the allegations without providing the petitioner an opportunity to inspect the proposal.

4. Compliance with the notification of March 21, 2014:
The notification allows the Chief Commissioner to examine proposals for forming a reasonable belief of contravention by an individual, with the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing before passing an order. The petitioner argued that they were not given a fair chance to respond to the allegations.

5. Lack of meaningful representation and material confrontation with the petitioner:
The petitioner was not provided with the contents of the Durgapur Commissionerate's proposal or the allegations against them during the hearing. This lack of disclosure hindered the petitioner's ability to make a meaningful representation and defend against the accusations.

6. Setting aside the impugned order and stay on payment:
The court found fault with the order dated March 15, 2016, for considering prejudicial matters without informing the petitioner. The order was set aside, with a stay on payment until the petitioner tenders the entire due amount by a specified date.

7. Entitlement to issue a fresh notice and constitutionality challenge:
While the impugned order was set aside, the Chief Commissioner was granted the right to issue a fresh notice, provided that the petitioner is made aware of the material against them contained in any report or proposal relied upon. The constitutionality challenge of the notification of March 21, 2014 was left open for future consideration.

---