Principles of natural justice - ex parte adjudication - retracted statement and need for corroboration - non application of judicial mind - insufficient evidence to sustain adjudication - inconsistency with prior adjudication and dropped proceedings - penalty determination and requirement for speaking reasonsPrinciples of natural justice - ex parte adjudication - Whether the adjudication was vitiated by denial of adequate opportunity of hearing and ex parte conclusion. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority conducted proceedings largely ex parte, fixed only three hearing dates in 1999 and there is no record demonstrating that the appellant was duly informed of those dates. The impugned order was passed ex parte within a short span and the Registrar's records do not show appeals by co noticees. On these facts the Tribunal concluded that adequate opportunity to defend was not afforded and that there was breach of the principles of natural justice. The lack of proof that the appellant received proper notice and the rapid closure of proceedings supported setting aside the adjudication on this ground. [Paras 18, 19]Adjudication vitiated for breach of natural justice and ex parte disposal; impugned order set aside.Retracted statement and need for corroboration - insufficient evidence to sustain adjudication - non application of judicial mind - Whether the Adjudicating Authority could lawfully rely on the appellant's retracted statement and other uncorroborated material to sustain findings of contravention. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal observed that the primary evidence against the appellant consisted of his retracted statement and statements primarily implicating the co noticee. There was no independent documentary evidence, no identification by bankers or recipients, and nothing incriminating seized from the appellant's premises. The Adjudicating Authority repeatedly misidentified noticee numbers and failed to apply judicial mind in attributing evidence against the appellant. Reliance upon the retracted statement without adequate reasons or corroboration rendered the impugned order non speaking, arbitrary and unsustainable. [Paras 18]Findings based on retracted and uncorroborated statements and on misapplication of evidence are unsustainable; impugned order set aside.Inconsistency with prior adjudication and dropped proceedings - penalty determination and requirement for speaking reasons - Whether the impugned adjudication and consolidated penalty could stand in view of earlier adjudication orders dropping identical proceedings against the appellant and co noticees. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal noted earlier adjudication orders (recorded in the file) in which proceedings against the appellant and co noticees on nearly identical allegations were dropped by the same Adjudicating Authority. Given the disparate outcomes on essentially the same evidence and the absence of clear reasoning in the impugned order explaining divergence, the Tribunal held that the imposition of a consolidated penalty without adequate, reasoned elucidation was impermissible. The Tribunal also observed that consolidated penalty practice required discernible application of law and reasoned quantification which the impugned order lacked. [Paras 17, 18]Impugned penalty and order cannot be sustained in the face of prior dropped proceedings and absence of speaking reasons; order set aside.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the impugned adjudication order is set aside for breach of natural justice, reliance on retracted and uncorroborated evidence, non application of judicial mind and lack of speaking reasons; any pre deposit by the appellant shall be refunded after the period of appeal.