Depreciated value for duty calculation must follow remand directions; non-compliance justified setting aside and fresh adjudication.

Duty was required to be recalculated on the depreciated value of the goods in accordance with the earlier remand directions, and the failure to allow depreciation on the capital goods meant the adjudicating authority had not complied with those directions. The impugned order was therefore not sustainable. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication, with recalculation of duty on depreciated value and an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty liability was required to be recalculated on the depreciated value of the goods in accordance with the earlier remand directions, and whether the matter should again be sent back for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The earlier remand had directed recalculation of duty on the depreciated value of the goods. The impugned order did not give effect to that direction and did not allow depreciation in respect of the capital goods. As the adjudicating authority failed to comply with the earlier remand, the order could not be sustained. Fresh adjudication was therefore necessary after recalculation on depreciated value and after granting the appellants an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for recalculation of duty on depreciated value after hearing the appellants.

---