https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42105 An ex parte excise demand order was set aside because the adjudicating authority had not granted the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing and had proceeded on a cryptic assessment. The High Court found that limitation under Rule 10, and the relevance of Rules 9(1) and 49(1), were not properly examined before the demand was confirmed. As procedural defects and incomplete consideration of the applicable rules affected the fairness of the decision, the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee and considering all available contentions. en-us Mon, 14 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:36:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42105 An ex parte excise demand order was set aside because the adjudicating authority had not granted the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing and had proceeded on a cryptic assessment. The High Court found that limitation under Rule 10, and the relevance of Rules 9(1) and 49(1), were not properly examined before the demand was confirmed. As procedural defects and incomplete consideration of the applicable rules affected the fairness of the decision, the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee and considering all available contentions. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42105