Reasoned adjudication in clandestine removal cases requires proper consideration of the reply; non-speaking orders invite remand.

A duty demand based on alleged clandestine removal could not be sustained where the assessee's reply to the show cause notice was not properly considered and the adjudication was not a speaking order. The challenge focused on failure to deal with the reply and supporting material, despite an earlier remand directed to ensure such consideration. The order was found inconsistent with reasoned adjudication and fair procedure in duty-demand proceedings, and was set aside with a direction for fresh adjudication by the Original Authority through a speaking order after considering the reply.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand order confirming alleged clandestine removal of goods could be sustained when the appellant's reply was not properly considered and the order was not a speaking order.

Analysis: The appellant's challenge centred on non-consideration of its reply to the show cause notice and the absence of reasoned adjudication. The impugned appellate order proceeded on the footing that the reply had been dealt with on merits, but the earlier remand had already been ordered to secure consideration of that reply. In these circumstances, the order was found to be inconsistent with the requirement of a reasoned decision and with fair procedure in adjudication of duty demands based on alleged clandestine removal.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Original Authority for fresh adjudication by passing a speaking order after considering the appellant's reply and supporting material.

---