https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102920 A communication confirming differential excise duty, though framed as confirmation, was treated as a quasi-judicial demand order because it imposed civil consequences on the assessee. Such an order must comply with natural justice and the statutory requirement of a prior show cause notice under the Central Excises Act, 1944. In the absence of that notice, the demand confirmation was held invalid. The existence of related proceedings on bank guarantees and High Court directions did not cure the defect or displace the statutory demand procedure. The appellate authority was therefore justified in treating the confirmation as unsustainable. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:28:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102920 A communication confirming differential excise duty, though framed as confirmation, was treated as a quasi-judicial demand order because it imposed civil consequences on the assessee. Such an order must comply with natural justice and the statutory requirement of a prior show cause notice under the Central Excises Act, 1944. In the absence of that notice, the demand confirmation was held invalid. The existence of related proceedings on bank guarantees and High Court directions did not cure the defect or displace the statutory demand procedure. The appellate authority was therefore justified in treating the confirmation as unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102920