Ex parte excise demand order set aside for procedural unfairness and inadequate consideration of limitation rules.

An ex parte excise demand order was set aside because the adjudicating authority had not granted the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing and had proceeded on a cryptic assessment. The High Court found that limitation under Rule 10, and the relevance of Rules 9(1) and 49(1), were not properly examined before the demand was confirmed. As procedural defects and incomplete consideration of the applicable rules affected the fairness of the decision, the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee and considering all available contentions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand order under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, passed ex parte and without proper consideration of limitation and the relevant rules, was liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh hearing.

Analysis: The impugned order was passed without granting adjournment to the assessee's representative and was described as cryptic. The decision further recorded that the adjudicating authority had not considered whether the demand notice had been served within the period prescribed under Rule 10, and had also failed to examine the bearing of Rules 9(1) and 49(1) before reaching a final conclusion. In these circumstances, the defect in procedure and the absence of adequate consideration warranted interference and a fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for rehearing after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to raise all available contentions.

---