Limited remand and exemption conditions bar fresh notification claims where classification alone was open for reconsideration.

In de novo proceedings confined to classification of forgings, exemption claims outside the remand scope could not be reopened. The Tribunal noted that the authority was directed only to redetermine duty liability on the basis of classification under Chapter Heading 72.08, and the attempt to invoke Notification Nos. 208/83 and 214/86 exceeded that limited remit. The benefit of Notification No. 208/83 was unavailable because the record did not show fulfilment of its conditions, and Notification No. 214/86 also could not be applied because the prescribed procedure was not followed. The de novo order was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled, in de novo proceedings following remand, to claim the benefit of Notification Nos. 208/83 and 214/86 when the remand was confined to classification of the forgings and the record did not establish satisfaction of the conditions of those notifications.

Analysis: The remand order required the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh on the classification of the products as forgings, keeping in view the Board's circular and the Tribunal's earlier ruling, and to redetermine duty liability accordingly. In the de novo proceedings, the Commissioner accepted the goods as classifiable under Chapter Heading 72.08. The claim to the benefit of Notification No. 208/83 was unsupported by evidence showing fulfilment of its conditions, and the claim to Notification No. 214/86 also failed as the prescribed procedure was not followed. The attempt to raise these notification claims went beyond the limited scope of the remand.

Conclusion: The rejection of the claims under Notification Nos. 208/83 and 214/86 was justified and no interference with the order was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The de novo order was sustained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a limited remand, issues outside the scope of the remand cannot be reopened, and exemption or notification benefits are not admissible unless their conditions and procedure are affirmatively established on record.

---