Delegation of duty determination is impermissible; quasi-judicial liability assessment must be done by the adjudicating authority.

An adjudicating authority cannot delegate the quasi-judicial function of determining duty liability under the Central Excise Act to the Assistant Commissioner for computation. Where the impugned order fixes liability but leaves the actual duty calculation to another officer, the order is vitiated because duty determination forms part of the adjudicatory function. The proper course is reconsideration by the competent authority after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The delegation was therefore impermissible, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication and computation of duty in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudicating authority could delegate to the Assistant Commissioner the task of working out the duty payable under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: The impugned order determined liability but left the actual computation of duty to the Assistant Commissioner. Such determination of duty is part of the adjudicatory function and cannot be delegated by the adjudicating authority to another officer. As the order suffered from this infirmity, the controversy required reconsideration by the competent authority after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

Conclusion: The delegation was impermissible and the matter was rightly remanded for fresh adjudication and computation of duty in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision by the jurisdictional Commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicating authority cannot delegate its quasi-judicial function of determining duty liability to another authority; if the order is vitiated by such delegation, remand for fresh adjudication is warranted.

---