Review remedy and natural justice in excise pricing matters: limitation runs from issue date, and orders without hearing fail.

A review application under the excise statute was treated as a separate statutory remedy and not barred merely because an appellate remedy was also available. Limitation for the review was computed from the date the order was issued, not merely from the date it was internally passed, so the applications were within time. Price-list approvals were found unsustainable because the Assistant Collector modified them without notice or a personal hearing, contrary to the procedural rule and the principles of natural justice, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after due hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a review application under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was maintainable as an alternative to the appellate remedy under Section 35 of the Act. (ii) Whether the review applications were within limitation, having regard to the date from which the one-year period was to be computed. (iii) Whether the price-list approvals were unsustainable for violation of Rule 173C(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the principles of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether a review application under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was maintainable as an alternative to the appellate remedy under Section 35 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 35A provided an alternative statutory remedy to the assessee in addition to the appellate remedy under Section 35. The objection that the assessee should have proceeded only by appeal was not accepted.

Conclusion: The review route under Section 35A was held to be maintainable and not barred merely because the appellate remedy under Section 35 was also available.

Issue (ii): Whether the review applications were within limitation, having regard to the date from which the one-year period was to be computed.

Analysis: The orders were treated as effective against the assessee only upon issue, and not merely upon internal passing in the file. On that basis, the applications received by the Collector within one year from the date of issue were treated as timely.

Conclusion: The review applications were held to be within the statutory time-limit.

Issue (iii): Whether the price-list approvals were unsustainable for violation of Rule 173C(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The Assistant Collector modified the price lists without issuing notice or granting personal hearing. This was treated as contrary to Rule 173C(7) and inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, rendering the orders unsustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned price-list approval orders were held to be unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were sent back for fresh decision after observance of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an order affecting the assessee is issued only later, limitation for a statutory review is computed from the date of issue, and an order passed without notice and hearing in breach of the governing procedural rule is not sustainable.

---