https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244552 An unexplained and excessive delay between personal hearing and adjudication can itself justify interference where it causes prejudice through non-consideration of material submissions and evidence. Here, the order was passed almost nine months after hearing despite written submissions, and it failed to address evidence that goods sent to job workers had been received back within 180 days. The court held that such delay undermines the adjudicatory process, and the availability of an alternate appellate remedy did not preclude relief under Article 226. The adjudication order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after granting a further personal hearing. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Sep 2017 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244552 An unexplained and excessive delay between personal hearing and adjudication can itself justify interference where it causes prejudice through non-consideration of material submissions and evidence. Here, the order was passed almost nine months after hearing despite written submissions, and it failed to address evidence that goods sent to job workers had been received back within 180 days. The court held that such delay undermines the adjudicatory process, and the availability of an alternate appellate remedy did not preclude relief under Article 226. The adjudication order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after granting a further personal hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244552