Natural justice bars withdrawal of excise permission without hearing; refund claim also survived the limitation objection.

Withdrawal of permission to use a special excise procedure was invalid because it imposed adverse civil and monetary consequences without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, contrary to natural justice. The finding that the assessee was eligible for the special procedure was upheld. The refund suit was not barred by limitation: the court examined the relevant dates, including rejection of departmental remedies and statutory notice, and found the prescribed period under the excise provision was not exceeded. The decree in favour of the assessee was sustained and the limitation plea rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the withdrawal of permission to avail the special excise procedure was valid when made without affording a hearing to the assessee; (ii) whether the suit for refund was barred by limitation under the excise law.

Issue (i): Whether the withdrawal of permission to avail the special excise procedure was valid when made without affording a hearing to the assessee.

Analysis: The permission had conferred a monetary benefit and its cancellation operated to the detriment of the assessee. The withdrawal was made without giving any opportunity of hearing. An adverse administrative order affecting civil consequences cannot be sustained without compliance with the principles of natural justice. The factual finding that the assessee was eligible for the special procedure was also accepted as proper.

Conclusion: The withdrawal of permission was invalid and the finding of eligibility was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for refund was barred by limitation under the excise law.

Analysis: The plea of limitation was examined against the dates of rejection of the departmental remedies and the statutory notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On that basis, the period prescribed by the excise provision was not exceeded. The claim was also treated as a just demand which the public authority ought not to defeat on limitation where the assessee had been denied a fair hearing at the departmental stage.

Conclusion: The suit was held to be within limitation and the plea of bar was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the assessee was sustained, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A permission or administrative benefit carrying civil and monetary consequences cannot be withdrawn to the detriment of the recipient without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and a limitation plea will not succeed where the claim is otherwise within time and supported by a legally sustainable entitlement.

---