Test report reliance and limitation objections required fresh consideration; inadequate reasoning led to remand for de novo adjudication.

Where conflicting departmental test results had led to acceptance of a fresh NITRA examination, the NITRA report could not be discarded without convincing reasons. The order was also deficient because it did not properly address the plea against invocation of the extended limitation period or the contention that the assessee acted bona fide and that penalty was unwarranted. As the decision reflected inadequate application of mind and incomplete consideration of the material issues, the matter required remand for de novo adjudication with proper examination of the test report, limitation, and penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalty order should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration on the ground that the authority did not properly consider the NITRA test report, the plea of limitation, and the plea of bona fides.

Analysis: The assessee's request to have the sealed samples tested by NITRA had been accepted because the earlier departmental test results were contradictory and insufficient. In that situation, the NITRA report acquired significance and could not be rejected without convincing reasons. The order also did not properly deal with the plea that the larger period could not be invoked and did not address the contention that the assessee acted bona fide and that penalty was not warranted. The order was therefore found to be non-detailed and passed without proper application of mind.

Conclusion: The matter required interference and remand for de novo consideration, including consideration of the NITRA report, limitation, and penalty.

---