https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53988 A departmental communication approved by the Commissioner was treated as a communicated decision, not as an adjudication order passed by the Commissioner in his adjudicating capacity, so an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not maintainable. As the issue affected recurring fiscal liability and the assessee had not been heard before the departmental view was finalised, fairness required a fresh hearing. The matter was therefore remitted to the Commissioner to consider the representation and pass a speaking order. en-us Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:20:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53988 A departmental communication approved by the Commissioner was treated as a communicated decision, not as an adjudication order passed by the Commissioner in his adjudicating capacity, so an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not maintainable. As the issue affected recurring fiscal liability and the assessee had not been heard before the departmental view was finalised, fairness required a fresh hearing. The matter was therefore remitted to the Commissioner to consider the representation and pass a speaking order. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53988