Natural justice challenge fails where competent excise authority gives notice, hearing, and independent consideration despite procedural lapse.

A procedural lapse by a non-adjudicating excise officer did not invalidate the adjudication where the competent authority issued the show cause notice, granted time and personal hearing, considered the written objections independently, and passed a reasoned order. The challenge based on alleged denial of access to seized records also failed because no request for production was shown to have been refused during adjudication, and no actual prejudice was established. The High Court therefore rejected the natural justice objection and sustained the excise demand and penalty order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned demand and penalty order under the Central Excise law were liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of natural justice, including premature issuance of demand and alleged denial of access to seized records.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowered the excise authorities to recover duty and impose penalties where evasion or contravention of the excise rules was established. The complaint of premature action by the subordinate officer did not, by itself, vitiate the adjudication because that officer was not the adjudicating authority. The show cause notice was issued by the proper authority, time to respond was granted and extended, written objections were filed, personal hearing was afforded, and the Collector independently considered the objections and passed a reasoned order. As to the seized books and papers, there was no showing that the petitioners had sought their production during the adjudication proceedings and were refused access; the asserted difficulty arose only after the adjudication order. In the absence of demonstrated prejudice, the plea of denial of natural justice failed.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of natural justice was rejected and the excise adjudication was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural impropriety by a non-adjudicating officer does not vitiate an excise adjudication where the competent authority gives notice, grants hearing, independently considers objections, and no actual prejudice from denial of access to records is established.

---