Abatement for closure period and natural justice required fresh reconsideration after denial of hearing in stenter dispute.

Demand and penalty required fresh consideration where the adjudicating authority treated a stenter as non-working but refused abatement for the closure period only because no formal abatement application had been filed. The record also showed that the demand and penalty were confirmed without giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority, with directions to apply the CBEC circular on abatement for closure period and to decide the matter after granting a hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalty required reconsideration in view of the plea that one stenter remained closed during the relevant period and whether the adjudication suffered from denial of hearing.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had proceeded on the basis of a non-working stenter while also refusing abatement for the closure period solely because no formal application for abatement had been filed. The record further showed that the demand and penalty were confirmed without affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing. In these circumstances, the matter required fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority, including application of the CBEC circular governing abatement for closure period and after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision.

---