Fair hearing requires remand where the assessee was unrepresented and Tribunal views on the issue had differed.

A dispute concerning duty on capital goods after long use and sale as scrap was not decided on the substantive excise issue. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had taken differing views on the same question in earlier matters and that the assessee had remained unrepresented before the Tribunal. In those circumstances, fairness required that the Revenue's appeal be heard afresh on merits after notice to both sides. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order should be set aside and the Revenue's appeal remitted for fresh decision after affording both sides an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The dispute arose from demand of duty on capital goods after their long use and sale as scrap, but the Court did not adjudicate the substantive excise controversy. It noted that the Tribunal had taken differing views in earlier matters on the same legal question and that, in the present case, the assessee had remained unrepresented before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the ends of justice required that the Revenue's appeal be heard afresh on merits after notice to both parties.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after hearing both parties, and the Tribunal's order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a party remains unrepresented and the issue has been the subject of differing Tribunal views, fairness may require setting aside the order and remitting the matter for a fresh hearing on merits.

---