Remand should be avoided when the existing record can resolve the factual dispute and prolonged litigation would continue.

In an exemption-certification dispute under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, the High Court held that the Tribunal should not have remanded the matter when the material needed to decide whether the industrial unit had remained closed for more than six months was already on record. It emphasised that, where the factual controversy can be resolved on the existing evidence and the matter has been pending for a long time, the forum should record its own finding rather than send the case back for another round of adjudication. The Court also noted that a public servant's statement made in discharge of statutory duties carries a presumption of regularity under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the Chairman, NOIDA instead of recording its own finding of fact on the material already on record.

Analysis: The revision challenged the remand order passed in an exemption-certification dispute under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The record before the authorities included the report and statement of the Superintendent of Central Excise and other materials bearing on whether the industrial unit had remained closed for more than six months. The Court held that, where the material necessary for deciding the factual controversy was already available and the matter had remained pending for a long period, the Tribunal ought to have itself appreciated the evidence and recorded a finding rather than sending the issue back for another round of adjudication. The Court also noted that the statement of a public servant acting in discharge of statutory duties could not be lightly disregarded, and that official acts carry a presumption of regularity under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Conclusion: The remand order was not legally justified. The revisionist succeeded in having the remand quashed, and the Tribunal was directed to rehear the appeal and decide it afresh on the basis of its own finding of fact.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the remand succeeded, but the dispute itself was sent back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the existing record.

Ratio Decidendi: When the appellate or revisional forum has before it the complete material necessary to resolve the factual issue, it should decide the issue itself rather than remand the matter unnecessarily, especially where prolonged litigation would be perpetuated.

---