Hidayatullah - (1.) IN this appeal by special leave Messrs Aluminium Corporation of INdia Ltd. challenge an order of the government of INdia, Ministry of Finance. IN a Civil Revision application filed by the Company under S. 36 321 of the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Company extracts Aluminium, from INdian Bauxite, prepares ingots, slabs and billets and rolls them into sheets, circles, etc. for sale from its factory situated in Jaykaynagar in Bardwan, West Bengal. The Company alleges that it rarely sells ingots and never any slabs or billets. All slabs and billets are converted into sheets, circles, etc and about 50% Aluminium becomes scrap in this process which is melted in a remelting furnace with ingots or molten metal received direct from the electrolytic furnace and recast in the form of billets and thus the cycles starts again. Excise duty on Aluminium was formerly imposed by Item 35 of the First Schedule to the Act, with effect from 1/03/1960, the entry is now placed at No. 27 and reads : JUDGEMENT_320_ELT2_1978Html1.htm A Note is appended to the entry which reads : (1) Under government of INdia, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 29/60-Central Excises, dated the 1/03/1960, the following: Aluminium manufacturers, namely, plates, sheets, circles, strips and foils in any form or size, in the manufacture of which duty paid aluminium in any form is used, are exempt from so much of the duty leviable thereon as, is in excess of Rs. 200.00 per metric tonne."
(2.) THE Company alleges that from 1/03/1960 to 24/04/1960 the Collector of central Excise, Calcutta levied excess excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,38,248.08 nP. upon slabs and billets. THE error, it is said, is that the scrap, which was remelted, was not considered and duty on slabs and billets at Rs. 300 per metric tonne was not proportionately refunded on scrap sent back for remelting. THE Company states that on this being pointed out the Department suggested some difficult method for claiming refund such as fitting an equivalent quantity of slabs released duty-free against scrap which made book- keeping very intricate. As we are not going into the merits of the claim we need not follow closely the events. It is sufficient to say that representations were made to the Department and some decisions were taken on them. THE Company made a demand for refund of duty paid on slabs and billets which were returned as scrap or asked for adjustment of the differential duty payable on sheets and circles during the period between 1/03/1960 and 29/04/1960. This demand for readjustment of the differential duty was rejected by the Assistant Collector, central Excise, Calcutta, 4th Division on 7/07/1960 on the ground that the duty was properly calculated at the existing tariff. THE demand for refund of duty on scrap was also disallowed, as melting was not done in accordance with the prescribed procedure and under the supervision of the Central Excise Officers. THE Company appealed to the Collector who up- held the order. THE Company filed a revision which went before the Joint Secretary, government of India, Ministry of Finance. Department of Revenue, New Delhi. THE Company asked for a personal hearing. At first the Company was asked to make its submissions in writing and personal hearing was refused. 322 On being pressed a personal hearing was granted on 5/03/1962 and the Company was also asked to make written submissions. In the light of the oral arguments and the written submissions the Collector was asked several times to report and finally on 18/02/1963 the following order was communicated to the Company: "Having regard to all facts and circumstances of the case, the Government of India hereby direct that refund of differential duty at the rate Rs. 300.00 per M.T. be granted on 46.8534 M.T. of manufactured products which although prepared from duty paid slab, had been erroneously subjected to the full duty of Rs. 500.00 per M.T. subject to this modification, the revision application is otherwise rejected." THE Company asked for details on which the conclusion that refund on 46.8534 M.T. only was admissible was based by a letter dated 17/06/1963 the Company was told that government had nothing to add to what had been communicated. The main grievance of the Company is that it is not clear how the figure of 46.8534 M.T. was reached on which differential duty was ordered to be refunded. Although it is very desirable that the authority deciding such revisions should indicate the reasons for the order, no reasons were given. The Company states that the result appeared to be based on enquiries from the Collector and on inspection of the books of the Company but without affording to the Company a chance to confute the report of the Collector or to explain its books of account. This, it is argued, was against the principles of natural justice or those principles on which quasi-judicial proceedings should be con- ducted. It may be mentioned that it is not denied that ,the facts brought to our notice are substantial be correct although it is submitted on behalf of the Union of India that no hearing was really required or claimable and that the principles of natural justice were not in any way violated. It appears to us that the order under appeal must be set aside because there was no fair opportunity to the Company to represent its case. It is no doubt true that the Company was given personal hearing and was also allowed to make written representations. Perhaps, this would have been sufficient if two other things had not taken place. The officer hearing the revision called .for reports from the Collector and if any reliance was going to be placed upon such reports they ought to have been placed in the hands of Company so that it might explain anything capable of explanation. Similarly, if the stock books etc. of the Company were inspected the results of such inspection should have been made available to the Company for its comments. The government has undertaken quasi-judicial or curial functions and a fair hearing means a hearing, however, given, which is adequate for the purpose of bringing before the officer. who makes the decision, all the relevant submissions pertaining to the case. This is the least that is expected of any one who decides and in this case this requirement has not been fulfilled. If fresh factual evidence is brought in, and it is likely to influence the decision, a fresh hearing should be given. In our opinion, there has not been a reasonable opportunity to the Company and a fresh opportunity must be given. We accordingly set aside the order of the Government and send back the case to government for decision after affording the Company a fair opportunity of making such submissions on the material in the possession of government, as it may choose to make. The respondents shall bear the cost of the appellant Company.;