N. B. PATEL, P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Mr. J. D. Ajmera learned Counsel waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioners represented by Mr. Dave is that the hearing was made by one Assistant Collector and the order was passed as regards the tariff heading by another Assistant Collector. Mr. Ajmera states that factually it is correct to say that the hearing was made by one Assistant Collector and that the final order was passed by another Assistant Collector changing tariff heading. Originally the tariff heading was 39. 26 and subsequently it was changed to 39. 20. If the tariff heading is 39. 20 there will be a liability on the part of the petitioners to pay excise duty and if the tariff heading is 39. 26 there will be an exemption from payment of excise duty. In as much as Mr. Ajmera accepts on the factual aspects of the case to the effect that the hearing was done by one Assistant Collector and the final order changing the tariff heading was passed by another Assistant Collector the same definitely violates the principles of natural justice and as such the order cannot stand. Hence we quash the order impugned in this Special C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document