Natural justice in duty disputes requires proper verification of records before adverse findings on clandestine removal are made.

A duty demand based on alleged clandestine removal was found unsustainable because the original authority rejected the assessee's challans and supporting records without proper verification or fair opportunity. The Tribunal held that disputed documentary evidence must be examined carefully before adverse findings are drawn, and that failure to test the genuineness of the records vitiates the adjudication for breach of natural justice. It therefore set aside the demand, confiscation and penalty order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication by the Commissioner after verification of the records and consideration of the defence reply.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication confirming duty demand, confiscation and penalty was vitiated for want of proper scrutiny of the documentary record and violation of the principles of natural justice, warranting remand for de novo consideration.

Analysis: The demand arose from allegations of clandestine removal and non-accountal of goods, but the appellants disputed the charge and relied on challans and other records said to show removal under the prescribed procedure. The original authority rejected those documents as an afterthought without undertaking proper verification of the entries and genuineness of the records in the manner required before drawing adverse conclusions. Since the documents were not examined with due opportunity to both sides and the appellants were entitled to have their records tested in a fair adjudicatory process, the adjudication was held to suffer from violation of natural justice. The Tribunal therefore declined to undertake the original fact-finding exercise itself and held that the matter had to go back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after verification of the records and consideration of the defence reply.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for de novo consideration; the appellants succeeded on the issue of procedural fairness and remand.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand based on disputed documents cannot be sustained where the original authority rejects the assessee's records without proper verification and fair opportunity, and such adjudication must be set aside for de novo decision-making consistent with natural justice.

---