Rule 49 remission applications require a speaking order and personal hearing; a departmental letter cannot replace the Commissioner's .

A remission application under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had to be decided by the Commissioner himself through a written speaking order after granting a reasonable personal hearing. A departmental letter issued by an Additional Commissioner could not substitute that statutory requirement, and the denial of hearing vitiated the decision-making process. The duty demand raised by letter was also unwarranted where the same subject matter was already pending in adjudication on show-cause notices. The impugned proceedings were therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of remission applications under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by an additional commissioner's letter, without personal hearing and without a written speaking order by the commissioner, was sustainable.

Analysis: A remission application under Rule 49 had to be decided by the commissioner himself by an order in writing after hearing the applicant. A communication by the additional commissioner could not be treated as the commissioner's written order under the rule. The appellants were also denied a personal hearing before the decision was taken. Further, the duty demand raised through the letter was unwarranted when the same subject matter was already pending in adjudication on the show-cause notices.

Conclusion: The impugned proceedings were unsustainable and were set aside. The matter was remanded to the commissioner to decide the remission applications by a speaking order in writing after granting a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A remission application under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 must be disposed of by the commissioner by a written speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and a mere departmental letter cannot substitute that statutory requirement.

---