De novo adjudication required where submissions and documents were not properly considered before findings on disputed demands.

The adjudicating authority had not properly considered the appellant's submissions and supporting documents, so the factual record required fresh examination before any finding on the disputed demands could be reached. A de novo adjudication was therefore necessary, with the appellant to be given an opportunity to place all defence materials and with reasoned findings to be recorded after proper analysis and correlation of the evidence. The merits of the dispute were left open for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication because the original authority had not properly considered the appellant's submissions and supporting documents.

Analysis: The record indicated that the adjudicating authority had not fully taken cognizance of the appellant's explanations and documents. Since the factual and documentary material required proper analysis and correlation before findings on the disputed demands could be reached, a fresh consideration by the original authority was necessary. The issues raised on merits were therefore left open for reconsideration.

Conclusion: Remand was warranted for de novo adjudication after giving the appellant an opportunity to place all materials in defence and after recording reasoned findings.

---