Jurisdiction and bias objections failed where no reasons showed lack of competence and no real likelihood of prejudice was established.

An appellate order setting aside adjudication for alleged bias and lack of competence was found unsustainable because it gave no reasons showing that the Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction. The Central Government held that the mere coincidence of seizure on the date of the Deputy Collector's factory visit did not establish a real likelihood of bias or prejudice. It also held that remanding the matter to the Collector for de novo adjudication was beyond the appellate authority's jurisdiction. The order-in-appeal was therefore set aside as contrary to law and unsupported by facts, and the matter was returned for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order-in-appeal setting aside the adjudication on the ground of alleged bias and want of competence of the Deputy Collector, and remanding the matter to the Collector for de novo adjudication, was lawful and proper.

Analysis: The Central Government found that the appellate order did not disclose any reasons showing why the Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction or competence to adjudicate the matter. It also held that the mere fact that seizure had taken place on the date of the Deputy Collector's visit to the factory did not establish a real likelihood of bias or prejudice against the party. The remand to the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay was additionally held to be beyond the appellate authority's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The order-in-appeal was held to be contrary to law and not based on facts, and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration and a fresh order in accordance with law.

---