Consideration of evidence is mandatory before confirming demand; assumptions on manufacture cannot replace proper inquiry and recorded findings.

An adjudicating authority must consider all documentary and technical evidence produced by the noticee before sustaining a demand or penalty, and cannot rely on assumptions about the nature of manufacture during the relevant period. Here, the Tribunal noted that inputs details, manufacturing charts, an audit report and product literature were ignored, and that the later availability of certain pump and diesel engine models did not by itself prove continuous manufacture of those models throughout the disputed period. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after proper inquiry and recorded findings on the evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on the ground that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the appellant's documentary evidence and proceeded on assumptions regarding the nature of the goods manufactured during the relevant period.

Analysis: The appeal challenged the demand and penalties arising from alleged misuse of the Chapter X procedure for procurement of non-duty paid inputs. The Tribunal found that the appellant had produced several documents and technical materials before the adjudicating authority, including details of inputs, manufacturing charts, audit report, and product literature, but these were not taken into account. It held that the mere availability of certain models of pumps and diesel engines on the later inspection date could not by itself justify an inference that the same models were manufactured throughout the relevant period. The adjudicating authority was required to consider the entire evidence, make proper inquiry, and then record findings on the reliability of that evidence before rejecting it.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, with directions to pass a fresh order after considering the evidence on record.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was not finally decided on merits, and the adjudication was reopened for fresh determination in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicating authority must consider all material evidence produced by the noticee and cannot discard it or sustain a demand on presumptions without proper inquiry and recorded reasons.

---