Remand proceedings cannot expand beyond the remitted scope; valuation stayed confined to Rule 7A and normal limitation applied.

In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority is bound by the scope of the remand and cannot reopen issues that have already attained finality. Where the earlier remand had confined valuation to Rule 7A, the authority was required only to explain and recompute the value under that rule after hearing the assessee, and could not substitute a different valuation basis. The demand was also confined to the normal period because the extended limitation finding had not been challenged. The matter was therefore remitted only for limited recomputation under Rule 7A, with the limitation ruling in favour of the assessee left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner, in remand proceedings, could travel beyond the earlier remand and reopen the valuation basis, and (ii) whether the demand had to be recomputed only under Rule 7A for the normal period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner, in remand proceedings, could travel beyond the earlier remand and reopen the valuation basis.

Analysis: The earlier remand had accepted that valuation was to proceed under Rule 7A and directed the Commissioner only to indicate the basis of computation and to examine the assessee's submissions. The valuation issue had thus attained finality to that extent. Since the Revenue had not successfully challenged the earlier order on this aspect, the remand proceedings could not be used to substitute a different valuation rule or enlarge the scope of adjudication beyond the terms of remand.

Conclusion: The Commissioner could not travel beyond the remand order; the valuation basis under Rule 7A remained binding.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand had to be recomputed only under Rule 7A for the normal period of limitation.

Analysis: Once the valuation was confined to Rule 7A, the only surviving exercise was to explain and compute the value under that rule after giving the assessee an opportunity to contest the methodology. The Revenue had not appealed against the finding that the extended period was unavailable, so the demand could be sustained only for the normal period of six months.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for limited recomputation under Rule 7A, and the demand was confined to the normal period.

Final Conclusion: The order under challenge was set aside to the limited extent necessary for fresh computation of value under Rule 7A, while the Revenue's appeal failed and the limitation finding in favour of the assessee remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority is bound by the scope of the remand and cannot reopen an issue that has already attained finality or expand the matter beyond what was remitted for reconsideration.

---