Technical verification on remand must be followed; ignoring expert findings cannot sustain duty demand and penalties.

After remand for technical verification, the adjudicating authority was required to follow the Tribunal's directions and assess the expert report on annual capacity of production and the nature of the BHEL motor connection. The report indicated lower annual capacity figures than those declared and did not establish whether the motor was permanently or temporarily connected, yet the authority still confirmed duty demand and penalties without addressing those findings. The Tribunal held that such adjudication could not be sustained because it ignored the remand instructions and the technical material on record, and the demand with penalties was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty and the connected penalties could be sustained when the matter had been remanded for technical verification and the adjudicating authority ignored the expert report and the Tribunal's earlier directions.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the correctness of the re-determined annual capacity of production and on whether the BHEL motor was permanently or temporarily connected to the mill. The Tribunal had earlier remanded the matter specifically for technical examination of the disputed parameters and for verification of the factual position. The technical expert's report, obtained pursuant to that remand, showed that the annual capacity of both mills worked out to figures lower than those declared by the appellants and also stated that it was not possible to conclude whether the BHEL motor was connected permanently or temporarily. The adjudicating authority nevertheless proceeded to confirm the duty demand and penalties without giving effect to the expert findings.

Conclusion: The demand of duty and the penalties could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside and the appellants were granted consequential relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the adjudication was contrary to the remand directions and the technical material on record, and the duty demand with penalties was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudication after remand is required to rest on technical verification, the authority must give effect to the expert report and cannot sustain a duty demand or penalty by ignoring findings that do not establish the department's case.

---