Remand discipline and outpatient treatment under exemption conditions govern whether camp patients count and community restriction is proved.

Lower adjudicating authorities must follow the scope of a remand order and cannot reopen issues already concluded by the appellate direction; the matter must be decided strictly within the remitted limits. For exemption compliance under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., treatment given in an outdoor medical camp may be treated as outpatient service where diagnosis and dispensing of medicines are substantively the same, and such patients may be counted toward the outpatient requirement. The record did not support a finding that the hospital's services were restricted to a particular community.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudicating authority could ignore the appellate direction given on remand and decide beyond the limited issues remitted; (ii) whether patients treated in the outdoor medical camp were to be counted for the 40% outdoor-patient requirement under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. and whether the hospital's facilities were confined to its own community.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudicating authority could ignore the appellate direction given on remand and decide beyond the limited issues remitted.

Analysis: The remand order had finally determined the limited controversy and required fresh adjudication within that framework. Subordinate revenue authorities were bound to follow the appellate direction and could not reopen or travel beyond the issue already concluded. The principle of judicial discipline required strict adherence to the hierarchy of appellate orders.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority could not go beyond the remand directions, and the matter had to be decided in accordance with the earlier appellate order.

Issue (ii): Whether patients treated in the outdoor medical camp were to be counted for the 40% outdoor-patient requirement under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. and whether the hospital's facilities were confined to its own community.

Analysis: The treatment rendered in the medical camp was held to be comparable to the treatment given in the outdoor department, including diagnosis and dispensing of medicines, and therefore formed part of the outpatient services relevant for the notification. The record also did not show any discrimination or restriction of services to members of a particular community.

Conclusion: Patients treated in the medical camp were to be counted for compliance with the notification, and the finding of community restriction was not sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of setting aside the contrary approach and securing a remand for decision on the limited issue in accordance with the binding appellate direction, while the Revenue's supporting cross objection failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Lower adjudicating authorities are bound by appellate remand directions and cannot reopen issues already concluded; for exemption compliance, medical camp treatment may be treated as outpatient treatment where the services are substantively the same and are rendered without discriminatory restriction.

---