Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Satyabir Bharti, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Central Govt. Counsel representing the Central Excise Department. 2. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture of denatured ethyl alcohol of any strength not fit for human consumption that is subject to the levy of excise duty. It was given four show cause notices by the excise authorities, copies of which are at Annexure 1 series. In the show cause notices it was stated that the petitioner was taking Modvat credit on molasses, the raw material for manufacture of ethyl alcohol. It was further stated that the petitioner had cleared certain quantities of the exempted final produce in breach of the provisions of a number of Excise Rules. The first show cause notice given to the petitioner was dated 31.3.1997 and it related to the period September, 1990. The second (sic) dated 24.9.1997 related to the period April-August, 1997. The third notice, dated 5.3.1998 related to the period September, 1997 to February, 1998 and the fourth notice giving rise to this writ petition), dated 9.6.1998 related to the period March to April, 1998. The petitioner filed replies to the four notices but the demands made therein were confirmed by adjudication orders, dated 8.12.1997, 7.12.1997. 27.5.1998 and 24.9.1998 respectively. 3. According to the petitioner, it filed appeals against all the four adjudication orders. In the first case (arising from notice, dated 31.3.1997 and the adjudication order, dated 8.12.1997) the appeal (568/Pat./2001) was dismissed by order, dated 8.11.2001. Against the appellate order, the petitioner preferred further appeal to Central Excise & Gold Control Tribunal. The tribunal allowed the appeal by order No. A/780/2002, dated 19.7.2002 setting aside the appellate and the adjudication orders. 4. In the second case (arising from notice, dated 24.9.199 7 and the adjudication order, dated 3.12.1997) the petitioners appeal (74/Pat./1999) was allowed by order , dated 14.5.1999 and the matter was remanded to the adjudication officer for de-novo enquiry. Finally by order, dated 25.9.2001 the adjudication office dropped the demand. 5. In the third case (arising from notice, dated 5.3.1998 and adjudication order, dated 27.5.1998) the petitioners appeal (93/Pat./ 1999) was dismissed and the adjudication order was confirmed by order, dated 6.7.1999. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by order No. 8832 A1230, dated 1.12.1999 set aside the appellate and the adjudication orders and remanded the matter for de-novo enquiry. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by order No. 8832 A1230, dated 1.12.1999 set aside the appellate and the adjudication orders and remanded the matter for de-novo enquiry. On remand the adjudication officer by order, dated 26.11.2001 dropped the demand. 6. This leaves out the matter arising from the last notice, dated 9.6.1998 and the adjudication order, dated 24.9.1998. As noticed above, according to the petitioner, he preferred appeal against this adjudication order too. It is, however, stated that no final order was passed on his appeal and its records were not longer traceable before the appellate authority. In those circumstance the petitioner was served with a demand order, dated 24.9.1998 that is brought before the court for being set aside. 7. Though a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Excise Department in which an attempt is made to contend that the matter arising from the notice, dated 9.6.1998 was different from the other matters arising from the three other notices, on hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, we are satisfied that all the four matters were substantially similar and the main difference was only with regard to the different periods. As the demands arising from the other three notices were finally dropped either by virtue of the Tribunals order or following a de-novo enquiry after remand by the appellate authority or the Tribunal, we consider it proper that this matter should also be remitted to the adjudication officer for de-novo enquiry. The adjudication order dated 24.09.1998 and the demand order, dated 24.9.1998 are accordingly set aside and the matter arising from the notice, dated 9.6.1998 is remanded to the adjudication officer for de-novo enquiry. 8. In order to facilitate an early disposal of the matter, the petitioner is directed to appear before him, along with a copy of this order, within three weeks from today. The adjudication authority shall give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and shall also take into account any materials produced on its behalf and pass final order in the proceeding within three months from the date of the petitioners first appearance. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with the observations and directions made above.