B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner obtained a licence in form L-6 under Rules 174 and 192 of the Central Excise rules authorising them to obtain without payment of the whole or part of the duty leviable on toluene, Benzene, Toluol and Xylene to be used by it in the manufacture of Rubber Solutions and Thinner during the five years ending on 31st December 1991. This licence was suspended by the order of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range II, Agra, vide his order dated 12th february, 1988. The order reads as follows: "central Excise Range II, Agra. C. No. 26/petrofine/87/180 to, m/s. Petrofine Chemicals 507-B Jalesar Road, agra. Sir, Sub:- Misuse of concession granted under Chapter X C/regd. On the basis of enquiries made, it has been revealed that you have misused the concession granted to you under Chapter X and the Asstt. Collector C. Excise, Agra has withdrawn his satisfaction for granting permission for issue of L-6 licence, with the direction that I should initiate proceedings under rule 181 of C. Ex. read with rule 192 to 196bb of C. Ex. Rules, 1944. Hence being the competent Licensing authority, I do hereby suspend your L-6 Licence No. 2/5 bpms/87 of 193/87 with effect from today. " ( 2 ) THE petitioner is questioning the said order mainly on the ground that it has been arrived at without observing the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that before passing this order no opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed action. ( 3 ) A reading of the order no doubt shows that it is merely consequential to the action of the assistant Collector, Central Excise, Agra, withdrawing his satisfaction for granting permission for issue of L-6 Licence. The order also recites that the Assistant Collector had directed the superintendent to initiate proceedings under Rule 181 of the Central Excise Rules read with rules 192 (2) and 196bb. However, in the counter-affidavit filed it is not stated that there is any such order of Assistant Collector or that any such order was passed by the Assistant Collector after notice to the petitioner. ( 4 ) A reading of the order shows that it is a substantive order of suspension. There is nothing in the order to indicate that it is an order of suspension pending inquiry. ( 4 ) A reading of the order shows that it is a substantive order of suspension. There is nothing in the order to indicate that it is an order of suspension pending inquiry. It is true that Rule 181 of the Central Excise Rules does not specifically provide for giving an opportunity to show cause to the affected person before cancelling the licence but the rule also does not exclude such a procedure. It is well settled that in such a situation principles of natural justice have to be imported to make the rule reasonable. We accordingly do so and hold that it was necessary for the Superintendent or other Central Excise Authorities, as the case may be, to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause before taking such action or passing an order under rule 181. Since this has not been done the impugned order dated 12th February, 1988, is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed herewith. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. ( 5 ) THIS order does not preclude the appropriate Central Excise Officer or Authority from taking proceedings afresh for suspending or cancelling the licence of the petitioner, if they are so advised, according to law. .