Natural justice requires fresh adjudication where post-hearing charges were added without giving a chance to rebut evidence.

A corrigendum issued after the hearing had concluded introduced substitution and addition of charges, and the appellants were denied adequate opportunity to answer the new allegations or adduce evidence. Because the revised charges affected the valuation dispute and the nature of sales to independent buyers, the record warranted one further opportunity to meet the case. The matter was therefore required to be remitted for reconsideration and fresh adjudication after allowing the appellants to file a reply and produce evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication deserved to be set aside and the matter remanded on account of the corrigendum introducing substitution and addition of charges after the hearing was over, coupled with denial of adequate opportunity to reply and adduce evidence.

Analysis: The corrigendum was issued after the hearing had concluded and it introduced substitution and addition to the allegations. The appellants had sought time to respond to the new matters, but that request was not granted. In these circumstances, the record disclosed sufficient justification for granting one further opportunity to meet the charges and produce evidence, especially on the valuation issue and the nature of sales to independent buyers.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be sent back for reconsideration and fresh adjudication after giving the appellants an opportunity to adduce evidence.

---