Binding effect of earlier appellate order bars reuse of a nullified letter in credit inadmissibility proceedings.

An earlier appellate order had treated the Superintendent's letter dated 6-2-1996 as a nullity and had directed the adjudicating authority to consider the assessee's claim under Rule 57H; that finding had not been challenged by the Revenue. A later direction requiring the assessee to file a reply on the proposed inadmissibility of credit, based on the same letter, was therefore inconsistent with the binding effect of the earlier order and could not stand. The remand for reconsideration was otherwise maintained, but the specific direction founded on the letter dated 6-2-1996 was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction requiring the assessee to submit a reply to the reasons for inadmissibility of credit, treating the Superintendent's letter dated 6-2-1996 as the basis for such reply, was sustainable.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had already treated the Superintendent's letter as a nullity and had directed the adjudicating authority to deal with the assessee's claim under Rule 57H. That earlier finding had not been challenged by the Revenue. In those circumstances, the later direction requiring a reply on the basis of the same letter could not stand, because it was inconsistent with the binding effect of the earlier order. The remand for reconsideration could continue, but the impugned direction founded on the letter dated 6-2-1996 had to be removed.

Conclusion: The direction to submit a reply on the reasons proposed for inadmissibility of credit contained in the letter dated 6-2-1996 was set aside, while the rest of the remand order was upheld.

---