Classification list approval and sample-pack markings required fresh factual findings before demand and penalty could be sustained.

Demand and penalty could not be sustained on the existing record because no findings were recorded on the approval of the classification lists, the marking of sample packs as "physician samples not to be sold", or the limitation objection. The factual basis for comparing the goods with regular trade packs also remained unclear, leaving the dispute incapable of final determination at the appellate stage. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration after a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalty could be sustained without findings on the approval of classification lists and the markings on the sample packs, and whether the matter required remand for de novo consideration.

Analysis: The approval of the classification lists, the accompanying sample packs bearing the inscription "physician samples not to be sold", and the plea that the demand was barred by limitation were material to the dispute. The original authority had not recorded findings on these specific submissions, particularly in relation to the products for which the factual basis of comparison with regular trade packs was also left unclear. In the absence of findings on these aspects, the dispute could not be finally determined at the appellate stage.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---