Proper consideration of defence evidence is required before sustaining clandestine removal allegations; matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

An adjudication order alleging clandestine removal and duty demand was held unsustainable where the authority failed to consider the assessee's detailed factual and legal objections, including electricity use, raw-material consumption, production capacity, notebook entries, witness statements, and expert opinions. The absence of reasons dealing with this defence material showed non-application of mind to the relevant issues. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication with proper consideration of the record and the expert evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order could be sustained when the assessee's detailed defence, relevant documentary material, and expert evidence were not dealt with, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The order under challenge proceeded on allegations of clandestine removal and duty demand, but the record showed that the assessee had raised detailed factual and legal objections regarding electricity consumption, raw-material consumption, production capacity, notebook entries, witness statements, and expert opinions. The impugned order did not adequately address these submissions or record reasons for accepting or rejecting them. A reasoned consideration of the defence material and expert opinion was necessary, and the absence of such consideration indicated a failure to apply mind to the relevant issues.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was unsustainable for want of proper consideration of the assessee's defence, and the matter was required to be remanded for fresh adjudication.

---