https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42087 The Court found the notification investing the Director of Anti Evasion with the powers of the Collector of Central Excise valid but criticized the exercise of powers by someone closely involved in the investigation. It held that respondent No. 1 violated principles of natural justice and engaged in procedural impropriety, leading to the impugned order being unsustainable. Despite the availability of a statutory appeal, the High Court entertained the petition due to a gross miscarriage of justice. The impugned order and corrigendum were quashed, allowing for fresh adjudication by a new officer, with respondents ordered to pay petitioners' costs. en-us Tue, 25 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:35:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42087 The Court found the notification investing the Director of Anti Evasion with the powers of the Collector of Central Excise valid but criticized the exercise of powers by someone closely involved in the investigation. It held that respondent No. 1 violated principles of natural justice and engaged in procedural impropriety, leading to the impugned order being unsustainable. Despite the availability of a statutory appeal, the High Court entertained the petition due to a gross miscarriage of justice. The impugned order and corrigendum were quashed, allowing for fresh adjudication by a new officer, with respondents ordered to pay petitioners' costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42087