Jurisdiction on remand turns on who can make the foundational production-capacity finding before fresh adjudication.

In remand proceedings requiring fresh determination of annual capacity of production, the exercise had to be carried out by the authority competent to make that foundational assessment in the first instance, namely the proper officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) was not the correct authority to undertake that determination on remand. The impugned order-in-appeal was therefore set aside and the matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh determination and consequential adjudication of the differential demands.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in remand proceedings, the determination of annual capacity of production had to be made by the original adjudicating authority acting as the proper officer, and not by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis: The earlier remand order directed fresh determination of the annual capacity of production and consequent adjudication of the differential demands. That exercise was required to be undertaken by the authority competent to make the determination in the first instance, namely the proper officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) was not the authority intended to carry out that exercise in remand.

Conclusion: The impugned order-in-appeal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the proper officer for fresh determination and adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional issue, resulting in remand of the matter for reconsideration by the original adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a remand requires fresh determination of a foundational factual assessment, the exercise must be undertaken by the authority competent to make that determination in the first instance.

---