Natural justice requires personal hearing before rejecting duty abatement, with fresh adjudication and a speaking order.

Orders rejecting abatement of central excise duty under Rule 96ZO(2) were passed without affording a personal hearing, which was treated as a breach of natural justice. The appropriate course was to set aside those orders and remit the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration after granting hearing and passing a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee succeeded on this issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders rejecting abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules were liable to be set aside for want of personal hearing and the matter remanded for fresh decision.

Analysis: The applications and appeals concerned a common issue relating to abatement of central excise duty. The impugned orders had been passed without affording the applicants an opportunity of personal hearing. In such a situation, the orders were treated as having been made in breach of the principles of natural justice. The matter was required to be reconsidered afresh by the adjudicating authority after granting personal hearing and by passing a speaking order in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The orders were set aside and the issue was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after affording personal hearing. The assessee succeeded on this issue.

Ratio Decidendi: An order affecting abatement of duty cannot stand where it is passed without granting personal hearing, and the proper course is to set it aside and remand the matter for fresh adjudication by a speaking order.

---