Non-speaking adjudication order set aside where key defence pleas were ignored; matter remanded for fresh consideration.

An adjudication order confirming duty demand and penalty could not be sustained because the authority failed to deal with the assessee's factual and legal defences, including job work, insufficient machinery, absence of financial flow back, and the basis for clubbing clearances of two units. The order was treated as non-speaking and lacking findings on the disputed pleas. Fresh adjudication was therefore required after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing and permitting evidence. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order confirming duty demand and penalty could be sustained when the points raised in defence were not dealt with, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The appellate authority found that the appellants had raised several factual and legal objections before the adjudicating authority, including the plea regarding job work, insufficiency of machinery, absence of financial flow back, and the relevance of the statement relied upon for clubbing the clearances of the two units. None of these contentions had been examined in the impugned order. The order was therefore found to be non-speaking and lacking detailed findings on the disputed pleas. In such circumstances, fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing and permitting evidence was considered necessary.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

---