https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74142 A refusal to permit destruction of excisable goods claimed to be unfit for marketing or consumption, where duty liability depended on the second proviso to Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, could not be treated as a mere administrative act. The authority had to consider the claim fairly, give the manufacturer an opportunity to establish the condition of the goods, and conduct a proper enquiry. Because no notice, hearing, or enquiry was afforded, the decision-making process was quasi-judicial in character and was vitiated by breach of natural justice. The matter therefore had to be reconsidered after hearing the appellant. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:46:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74142 A refusal to permit destruction of excisable goods claimed to be unfit for marketing or consumption, where duty liability depended on the second proviso to Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, could not be treated as a mere administrative act. The authority had to consider the claim fairly, give the manufacturer an opportunity to establish the condition of the goods, and conduct a proper enquiry. Because no notice, hearing, or enquiry was afforded, the decision-making process was quasi-judicial in character and was vitiated by breach of natural justice. The matter therefore had to be reconsidered after hearing the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74142