Natural justice governs forfeiture of fortnightly excise duty payment facility where civil consequences arise.

Forfeiture of the facility to pay central excise duty on a fortnightly basis under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 attracted the principles of natural justice because it had immediate civil consequences and affected the assessee's concessional payment right. The court noted that mere silence in the rules did not exclude a pre-decisional hearing by necessary implication, and procedural fairness could still be followed without defeating the amended scheme. The stated principle is that an administrative or quasi-judicial order carrying civil consequences requires notice and an opportunity of hearing unless the statute clearly excludes that safeguard.

---

---

Issues: Whether the facility to pay central excise duty on a fortnightly basis could be forfeited under Rule 49(1)(e) and Rule 173G(1)(e) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 without giving the assessee notice and an opportunity of hearing, and whether the consequential appellate order could survive.

Analysis: The amended scheme permitted fortnightly payment of duty and imposed forfeiture of that facility on default. The Court held that the silence of the rules on hearing did not, by itself, exclude the principles of natural justice. Since forfeiture had immediate civil consequences and affected the assessee's right to use the concessional payment facility, a pre-decisional opportunity of hearing was implicit unless excluded by necessary implication. The Court further held that the object of the amended rules would not be defeated by insisting on notice and hearing, because the authority could still enforce forfeiture after following fair procedure and the defaulter would remain liable to pay interest on delayed duty.

Conclusion: The forfeiture order was invalid for breach of natural justice, and the appellate order fell with it.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an administrative or quasi-judicial order entails civil consequences, a pre-decisional hearing is required unless the statute excludes it by necessary implication, and mere silence of the provision does not amount to such exclusion.

---