Fair adjudication requires proper consideration of defence and evidence; unsupported findings led to remand for fresh decision.

An adjudication order may be set aside where the authority fails to fairly consider the assessee's defence, including documentary rebuttal and the effect of a disclaimer linked to the trade mark reference, and relies on material not properly put in the show cause notice. Statements treated as conclusive without addressing contrary evidence undermine the fairness of the process. Where such contested pleas go to the heart of the dispute, the proper course is remand for de novo adjudication with definite findings on each contention and a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The impugned adjudication was set aside and the matter sent back for fresh decision on all issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudication order required interference for non-consideration of the assessee's defence regarding the exemption claim and related evidence. (ii) Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication after recording findings on each plea and granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudication order required interference for non-consideration of the assessee's defence regarding the exemption claim and related evidence.

Analysis: The order did not adequately deal with the significance of the disclaimer attached to the trade mark reference, and reliance was placed on material not fairly put to the assessee in the show cause notice. The evidentiary value of statements was also treated as conclusive without proper consideration of the documentary rebuttal placed on record. These omissions affected the fairness of the adjudication.

Conclusion: The order suffered from infirmities warranting interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication after recording findings on each plea and granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Since the disputed pleas were central to the controversy and had not been conclusively addressed, the proper course was to send the matter back for a fresh decision on merits. The authority was required to record definite findings on each contention after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication was set aside and the proceedings were sent back for fresh decision on all contested issues after due hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication cannot stand where material defences and evidence are not fairly considered and the affected party is not given a proper opportunity to meet the basis of the decision; in such cases, remand for de novo adjudication is appropriate.

---