Independent adjudication requires deciding on the record; batch number discrepancies alone did not justify confiscation.

An adjudicating authority must decide independently on the material before it and cannot be required to send defence evidence back to the investigating agency for scrutiny, as that would compromise quasi-judicial adjudication. On the facts, the transactions in the sale chain were found genuine, the goods were not shown to fall under Chapter IV-A or section 123, and a discrepancy in batch numbers by itself did not establish illicit importation or justify confiscation. The lower authority's order exonerating the noticees was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudicating authority was required to send the defence evidence back to the investigating agency for scrutiny, and whether the impugned goods were liable to confiscation on the basis of the alleged discrepancy in batch numbers.

Analysis: The appellate authority held that investigation is the function of the investigating agency, while the adjudicator must act independently and decide the matter on the material placed before it. It found that requiring defence evidence to be referred back to the investigators would undermine quasi-judicial adjudication. On the facts, the authority also accepted that the transactions in the chain of sale were genuine, that the goods were not shown to be covered by Chapter IV-A or section 123, and that the difference in batch numbers alone did not establish illicit importation. The order of the lower authority was therefore found to be sound.

Conclusion: The plea of Revenue was rejected, and the order exonerating the noticees was upheld.

---