Natural justice requires a speaking order addressing core objections; intemperate remarks and non-reasoned denial led to remand.

Where a quasi-judicial authority records the parties' contentions but fails to decide the material objections, including absence of show cause notice, denial of personal hearing and supporting evidence for Modvat credit, the order is not a speaking order and offends natural justice. A reasoned adjudication must address each ground raised and explain why the claim is rejected; intemperate or extravagant remarks in such an order are also inappropriate. The impugned orders were therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after granting personal hearing and passing a detailed speaking order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned orders, which did not deal with the appellants' submissions and contained intemperate observations, were liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in compliance with natural justice.

Analysis: The order under challenge recorded the parties' contentions but did not return findings on the material issues, including the alleged absence of show cause notice, denial of personal hearing, and the supporting documentary evidence relied upon for Modvat credit. A reasoned adjudication is required where credit is denied on alleged procedural defects, and the authority must address the grounds raised and explain why the claim fails. The use of harsh or extravagant language in an adjudicatory order was also disapproved, and such intemperate remarks were found to be inappropriate in quasi-judicial determination. Since the lower authorities had not examined the core objections and the orders were not speaking orders, the defect went to the fairness of the adjudication itself.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after granting personal hearing and passing a detailed speaking order in accordance with natural justice.

---