Natural justice and procedural defects required fresh adjudication after the order ignored the reply, hearing submissions, and permissions.

An adjudication order was found unsustainable where it failed to consider the written reply and oral submissions made at hearing, and was not signed by the adjudicating authority. The authority also had to consider the permissions granted by the Development Commissioner and the appellant's objections before confirming the demand. Because these procedural defects and the breach of natural justice vitiated the decision, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after due hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on account of breach of natural justice and procedural defects.

Analysis: The order was found to be unsustainable because it did not deal with the written reply and submissions made at personal hearing. It was also noted that the order was not signed by the adjudicating authority. In addition, the clearance of goods had been made pursuant to permission granted by the Development Commissioner, and the authority was required to consider those permissions and the appellant's objections before confirming the demand. In these circumstances, a fresh decision after hearing the appellant and considering the Development Commissioner's views was necessary.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after due hearing.

---