"𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐄": 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬

Rules of Natural Justice cannot be put in a straight jacket, and applicability thereof would depend upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Pandey 1995 AIR 338; (1994) 5 SCC 663

Except cases falling under "NO NOTICE", "NO OPPORTUNITY," and "NO HEARING" categories, the complained violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee

in defending himself properly and effectively. Supreme Court in S.K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364]

The object of giving Notice to a Person is obviously to give him an opportunity to be heard before a finding is given. Supreme Court in Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh [AIR 1955 SC 830; (1955) 2 SCR 457]

Exact nature of Contravention needs to be communicated to the assessee. In this case Penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules was levied which had six clauses. In notice all six were mentioned without ticking the exact contravention. Amrit Foods [(2005) 190 ELT 433 SC]

Conclusion:
Written Arguments are "no substitute" of oral hearing.

Hearing cannot be empty formality, it must be Real Opportunity of being heard. "Useless Formality Theory"

Principles of Natural Justice are not intended to operate as roadblocks to obstruct statutory inquiries.