De novo adjudication must follow remand directions and rest on fresh evidence; repeated findings could not sustain duty demand.

A de novo adjudication must strictly follow remand directions and rest on fresh, cogent findings supported by reliable evidence when clandestine manufacture and removal are alleged. Repeating the earlier reasoning and relying on the same private records without independent appraisal does not satisfy that requirement. The order was also unsustainable insofar as it imposed enhanced penalty and interest without adequate justification, especially where the earlier vacation of penalty had attained finality. On these grounds, the demand, penalty and interest were set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the de novo adjudication complied with the remand directions and whether the demand of duty, penalty and interest could be sustained in the absence of fresh cogent findings based on irresistible evidence.

Analysis: The earlier remand had required the adjudicating authority to reconsider the duty liability afresh and to record cogent findings if clandestine manufacture and removal were alleged. In the de novo proceedings, the authority substantially repeated the earlier reasoning, relied again on the same private records, and did not undertake an independent appraisal of the evidence as directed. The order also imposed a higher penalty and interest without adequate justification, despite the earlier vacation of penalty having attained finality.

Conclusion: The de novo order was unsustainable for non-compliance with the remand directions and for want of fresh, reasoned findings supported by reliable evidence. The demand, penalty and interest were set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

---