Remand order in de novo adjudication does not bar all defences, and an appeal is not maintainable without prejudice.

An appeal against a remand order was held not maintainable where the original adjudication had already been set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision. The remand for de novo adjudication did not prevent the assessee from raising all available defences, filing documents, or contesting the demand before the adjudicating authority. In the absence of any shown prejudice from the absence of an express recital on reconsideration of defence pleas, no independent cause survived to challenge the remand. The proceedings were therefore left to continue before the original authority without interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal lies against a remand order setting aside the original adjudication and directing fresh decision, and whether the remand order required a specific direction that the assessee's defence pleas be considered afresh.

Analysis: The remand order did not foreclose the assessee from raising all pleas and filing documents before the adjudicating authority in the de novo proceedings. The direction for fresh adjudication after hearing necessarily preserved the opportunity to contest the demand on all grounds, and no prejudice was shown from absence of an express recital to that effect. Since the original duty demand and penalty had already been set aside and the matter was only remitted for fresh decision, the assessee had no surviving cause to challenge the remand order.

Conclusion: The appeal against the remand order was not maintainable and was therefore dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The remand order was upheld, and the proceedings were terminated without any interference with the direction for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand order that restores the matter for fresh adjudication does not bar the party from raising all available defences before the adjudicating authority, and an appeal challenging such remand is not maintainable when no independent prejudice is demonstrated.

---