The absence of a pre-decisional hearing and reliance on the advice of a lawyer constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice, and the post-decisional hearing by way of appeal could not cure this defect.

1. The petition is for a direction to the second respondent to state the case and to refer to this Court the questions of law raised by the petitioner in Para.17 of the petition as follows:

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the exparte order under appeal liable to be set aside and the appellant given a fresh opportunity to file his written representation to the show cause notice, as the failure to submit the written representation in time was not due to any fault on the part of the appellant, but, if at all, was the result of the fault committed by his counsel?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the order under appeal bad for non-compliance with R.233 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by which a duty is cast on the respondent to afford the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of being heard, over and above the opportunity of making a representation in writing?

3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not the order under appeal liable to be set aside for non-application of mind on the part of the respondent before issuing the show cause notice and the final order?

4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not the order under appeal liable to be set aside for non-consideration of relevant materials while adjudicating the case against the appellant and others?

5. Whether, on a perusal of the order under appeal can it be said that the respondent has complied with the provisions of R.173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in as much as the respondent has ordered the confiscation of the land, building, plant, machinery etc. used in the manufacture, storage etc.?

6. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has not the Appellate Tribunal gone wrong and acted without jurisdiction in sustaining that part of the order under appeal which was directed against M/s. Vitco Rubber Industries, Kizhakkambalam, Alwaye, and setting aside only the other part of the order under appeal which was directed against the appellant?

7. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not the order under appeal incompetent and liable to be set aside for violation of the maxim nemo judex in re sus in as much as the adjudicating authority (respondent) was responsible for sanction order No.3/86-87 dated 4-4-1986 distributing advance cash rewards to the various officers who participated in the detection/ investigation of the case relating to M/s. Vitco Rubber Industries, Kizhakkambalam and thereby prejudging the issues arising for adjudication?

2. The petitioner is the Proprietor of Vitco Rubber Industries, Kizhakkambalam engaged in the manufacture of tread rubber which is an excisable commodity. On 3-8-85 the officers of the Central Excise Wing at Cochin visited the petitioner's factory and verified the stock and account of tread rubber. They also seized the registers and files kept there. The petitioner's residence was also raided and seized certain records. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 29-1-1986 was issued to the petitioner. After referring to the facts relating to search and seizure and also the facts ascertained from the record seized, the petitioner was required to show cause to the Collector of Central Excise Cochin-31 as to why duty amounting to Rs.17,47,091.53 should not be demanded on the goods cleared during the period from 8/81 to 8/85 from the petitioner under R.9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso to sub section (1) of S.11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner was also directed to show cause as to why the tread rubber seized from the premises of Sri. Narayanankutty and weighing 441 Kgs. should not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed on the petitioner under R.9(2), 52(A),173Q and 226 and also why the land, building, plant, machinery, materials etc. should not be confiscated under R.173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The show cause notice