Speaking order requirement in remission of duty matters: unreasoned administrative rejection warrants remand for fresh hearing.

A remission request under Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be effectively disposed of by an unreasoned administrative letter alone. Where the Collector's decision is not conveyed through a speaking order, the absence of recorded reasons justifies interference because the affected party is entitled to understand the basis of rejection and to be heard. The matter was therefore remanded for a reasoned decision after giving the appellants an opportunity of representation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the request for remission of duty, conveyed only through an administrative letter without a reasoned order, could be sustained and whether the matter should be remanded for a speaking order.

Analysis: The request for remission had been made under Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The decision of the Collector was not conveyed as a reasoned order but only through a letter from the Assistant Collector. In these circumstances, the absence of a speaking order justified interference, and the proper course was to require a reasoned decision after giving the appellants an opportunity of representation.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for passing a speaking order after affording the appellants an opportunity to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a remission request is disposed of only by an unreasoned administrative communication, the matter may be remanded for a speaking order after hearing the affected party.

---