Natural justice challenge fails where notice was served, time was extended, and statutory appeal remained the proper remedy.

A writ petition challenging adjudication on the ground of denial of adequate opportunity failed where the record showed service of the show cause notice and repeated extensions to file a reply, but no reply was submitted even after time was enlarged. The Court held that the allegation of breach of natural justice was unsupported on the facts, and that Section 33-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not require the additional opportunities claimed. Because the challenge went to the merits of the adjudication, the proper course was to pursue the statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, where all objections could be raised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable on the ground of alleged denial of sufficient opportunity before the adjudicating authority and violation of natural justice, despite the availability of a statutory appeal.

Analysis: The petitioner had received the show cause notice and was repeatedly granted time to file a reply, but no reply was submitted even after extension of time. In these circumstances, the claim that adequate opportunity was not given was not supported by the record. The Court also held that Section 33-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not require the additional opportunities claimed by the petitioner. Since the challenge went to the merits of the adjudication, the proper remedy was a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, where all objections could be urged.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the pleaded ground of violation of natural justice and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

---