Remand for de novo adjudication where stale hearing and disputed excise records required fresh factual examination.

Protracted delay between hearing and order, together with a detailed factual dispute over alleged clandestine removals and excise record maintenance, justified remand for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the appellants should have been given a further opportunity of hearing before the order was passed, and that the charted material, counter-comments, invoices, gate passes and stock accountal required fresh examination at the original stage. The matter was therefore sent back to the adjudicating authority for re-appraisal of the evidence produced by both sides and for a fresh decision after hearing the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the matter required remand for de novo adjudication in view of the lapse of time after hearing, the voluminous charted material, and the need to re-examine the disputed factual issues relating to alleged clandestine removals and maintenance of excise records.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the adjudication had been heard long before the order was passed and that, in the circumstances, the appellants ought to have been given another opportunity before the order was made. The record before the Tribunal also contained detailed charts and counter-comments on quantities, invoices, gate passes, and stock accountal, showing that the factual controversy required fresh examination at the original stage. The matter was therefore considered suitable for re-appraisal by the adjudicating authority with reference to the materials produced by both sides, after affording a proper hearing.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed by remand and the matter was sent back for de novo adjudication after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing.

---