Fair hearing requirement quashes excise demand orders where objections were rejected without personal hearing.

Orders confirming excise demand and withdrawing the benefit of duty-free procurement of sulphuric acid were quashed because the petitioner was not given a personal hearing before the adverse action was taken. The rejection of objections without a fair opportunity to substantiate the case was held to offend the requirement of fair procedure. The matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders confirming excise demand and withdrawing the benefit relating to duty-free procurement of sulphuric acid were liable to be quashed for denial of opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The petitioner's objections to the proposed action were rejected without affording a personal hearing. The impugned orders were passed in the absence of a fair opportunity to substantiate the petitioner's case. Such disposal offended the requirement of fair procedure and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

---