Improper delegation of duty quantification vitiates adjudication, requiring fresh determination and remand.

An adjudicating authority must itself quantify the duty demand where that function is central to the decision; if the quantification is impermissibly left to a subordinate officer, the adjudication is infirm. The Tribunal applied this principle and held the order invalid on that short ground. The matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh decision, quantification of duty, and issuance of a fresh order after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order was vitiated because the quantification of duty demand was left to a subordinate officer, and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: The impugned order determined the assessable value and directed recovery of duty, but the assessee challenged the order on the ground that the authority who was required to quantify the demand had impermissibly delegated that task to a subordinate officer. The Tribunal accepted the settled legal position that where the adjudicating authority is required to determine the demand, the function cannot be delegated in a manner that renders the order invalid.

Conclusion: The impugned order was held to be infirm on this ground, and the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner to decide the issue afresh, quantify the duty, and pass appropriate orders after hearing the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the short point of illegality in the adjudication process, with the substantive issue sent back for fresh determination.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicating authority must itself perform the essential function of quantifying the demand and cannot validly delegate that determination in a manner that vitiates the order.

---