Natural justice in Central Excise licence amendments requires notice before adding new names or altering a personal privilege.

Amendment of a Central Excise licence by adding additional names could not be sustained without notice to the original licensee, because the licence was treated as a valuable personal privilege and deprivation of that privilege required observance of natural justice. The absence of an express statutory notice requirement did not dispense with the need for notice, and the record did not show a valid refusal of notice. The existence or continuance of a partnership also could not be assumed unilaterally to bypass notice. The amendment order was therefore vitiated for breach of natural justice and was quashed, with the matter remitted for fresh hearing after due notice.

---

---

Issues: Whether amendment of the Central Excise licence by including the names of additional persons could be sustained without notice to the original licensee, and whether the order was liable to be quashed for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: A licence under the Central Excise regime was treated as a valuable personal privilege and, in the context of deprivation of that privilege, notice to the affected person was held to be essential. The Court rejected the contention that no notice was required merely because the statute or rules did not expressly provide for it. It also rejected the contention that notice had in fact been refused, holding that the record showed only an endorsement that the initials differed. The Court further held that the existence or continuance of a partnership and the effect of the partnership law could not be unilaterally assumed so as to dispense with notice. The order was thus found to be vitiated by violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The amendment order was invalid for want of notice and was quashed, with the matter sent back for fresh hearing after due notice to all concerned parties.

---