Speaking order requirement: failure to consider a material defence and supporting evidence led to remand for fresh adjudication.

An adjudication order was vulnerable because it failed to deal with the assessee's specific defence that the disputed consignments were not received by the consignees. The defence had been raised in the reply to the show cause notice and was supported by written confirmations from six of the seven alleged consignees, but the impugned order ignored that material. An order that omits consideration of a material defence and supporting evidence is not a proper speaking order. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after granting personal hearing to the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order was liable to be set aside for failure to consider the assessee's defence that the disputed consignments were not received by the consignees, thereby rendering the order non-speaking.

Analysis: The record showed that the defence of non-receipt by the consignees had been specifically raised in the reply to the show cause notice and was supported by written confirmations from six out of seven alleged consignees. That material was not dealt with in the impugned order. An adjudication order that omits consideration of a material defence and supporting evidence suffers from a serious defect and cannot stand as a proper speaking order.

Conclusion: The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting personal hearing to the appellants.

---