Fair procedure in classification disputes requires consideration of defence material and relied-upon documents before adjudication.

An adjudication order cannot be sustained where the authority ignores the assessee's requests for relied-upon documents, defence material, and cited case law, and fails to address the classification submissions. Non-consideration of relevant evidence and an erroneous approach to the burden of proving classification amounted to breach of fair procedure. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after supplying the documents, considering all materials and case law, and granting a reasonable hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order was sustainable when the Commissioner failed to consider the assessee's material, requests for documents, and reliance on case law, and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: The order recorded that the assessee had sought copies of relied-upon documents and had placed product literature, scientific material, supplier certificates, and case law before the adjudicating authority. The reasoning in the impugned order did not show consideration of these materials, nor did it address the assessee's specific submissions on classification. The authority was also seen to have proceeded on an erroneous assumption regarding the burden of proving classification. In these circumstances, the adjudication was found to have been vitiated by non-consideration of relevant material and by breach of fair procedure.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after supplying the relied-upon documents, considering all materials and case law, and granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order cannot be sustained where relevant defence material and requests for documents are ignored; such procedural unfairness justifies setting aside the order and remanding the matter for de novo decision.

---