Ex parte excise demand cannot stand without hearing, limitation review, and consideration of relevant statutory provisions.

An ex parte excise demand order cannot be sustained where the assessee was denied an effective hearing and the authority failed to consider limitation and the relevant excise provisions before deciding the demand. The order was found cryptic and procedurally unfair, so it was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be given a proper opportunity to be heard, and both sides could lead evidence and raise available points before the Assistant Collector.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte demand order under the Central Excise Rules could stand when the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing and the authority had not considered limitation and the relevant excise provisions before deciding the demand.

Analysis: The demand order was passed ex parte without granting adjournment to the assessee's representative. The order was also cryptic and did not address whether the demand notice had been served within the period of limitation under the relevant rule. The authority ought also to have considered the connected excise provisions before reaching a final decision. In these circumstances, the matter required reconsideration after affording the assessee a proper hearing and allowing the parties to lead evidence and raise available points.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing before the Assistant Collector.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief by way of remand for de novo adjudication with an opportunity of hearing, while the demand was not finally upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An ex parte excise demand order that does not afford a proper hearing and fails to consider limitation and other relevant statutory provisions cannot be sustained and must be set aside for fresh adjudication.

---