Abatement circular applied as written, while the demand dispute was remanded pending High Court ruling on rule validity.

A Board circular applicable to the relevant period governing abatement was given effect according to its plain terms, and the Revenue's attempt to read a prior-payment restriction into it was rejected; the resulting reduction of duty and penalty demand was upheld in favour of the assessee. Where the validity of the underlying rule was pending before the High Court, the Tribunal held that the proper course was to remand the matter and keep it pending until the vires issue was decided, after which the original authority must decide the dispute according to law as declared by the High Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Board circular governing abatement for the relevant period applied so as to sustain reduction of the duty and penalty demand; (ii) whether the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority to await the decision on the validity of the rule under which the demand arose.

Issue (i): whether the Board circular governing abatement for the relevant period applied so as to sustain reduction of the duty and penalty demand.

Analysis: The claim for abatement related to a period covered by the Board's instruction, and the circular did not contain the restriction sought to be read into it by the Revenue. The direction in the circular was that for claims up to the relevant month, field officers should not insist on prior payment before deciding abatement. On that basis, the reduction of the demand was accepted as correctly made.

Conclusion: The circular was applicable, and the reduction of the demand was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority to await the decision on the validity of the rule under which the demand arose.

Analysis: The validity of the rule was stated to be under challenge before the High Court, and it was noted that similar matters had been remanded with a direction to await that decision. In that situation, the Tribunal directed the original adjudicating authority to keep the matter pending until the High Court decided the vires issue and thereafter decide the case according to law as declared by the High Court.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision after the High Court's ruling on the validity issue.

Final Conclusion: The demand was not finally adjudicated on merits, and the controversy was sent back for reconsideration after the pending vires determination, while the assessee's position on abatement was accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing rule's validity is pending adjudication before the High Court, the proper course is to remand the matter for reconsideration after that ruling, and a Board circular applicable to the relevant period must be given effect according to its plain terms.

---