https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40930 The court upheld the Collector of Central Excise's power to re-adjudicate a case without a specific remand direction from the Board. The government's argument, supported by previous judgments, emphasized that a remand or de novo inquiry can be implied when the intention is clear from the order. The Board's decision to vacate the Collector's original order was interpreted as allowing further inquiry into the charges against the petitioner, ensuring proceedings continued on their merits. The re-adjudication process, conducted in compliance with natural justice principles, was deemed legally sound, leading to the rejection of the revision application. en-us Tue, 18 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 May 2010 11:25:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40930 The court upheld the Collector of Central Excise's power to re-adjudicate a case without a specific remand direction from the Board. The government's argument, supported by previous judgments, emphasized that a remand or de novo inquiry can be implied when the intention is clear from the order. The Board's decision to vacate the Collector's original order was interpreted as allowing further inquiry into the charges against the petitioner, ensuring proceedings continued on their merits. The re-adjudication process, conducted in compliance with natural justice principles, was deemed legally sound, leading to the rejection of the revision application. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40930