Scope of remand and binding findings: Collector could not reopen petitioners' experience and had to decide only remaining licence conditions.

On remand, the Collector was bound by the revisional authority's finding that the petitioners had the requisite experience in dealing with gold ornaments and could not reopen that issue. The remand was limited to examining whether the other conditions under Rule 2 were satisfied, so a fresh adverse decision on experience exceeded the scope of remand and amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record. The rejection of the licence application on that basis was unsustainable and was set aside. The Collector was directed to proceed on the footing that Rule 2(b) was satisfied and to decide only the remaining requirements under Rule 2.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after remand by the revisional authority, the Collector could reopen and decide adversely the question of the petitioners' experience in dealing with gold ornaments, and whether the impugned order rejecting the licence application was sustainable.

Analysis: The revisional authority had already concluded that the petitioner had the requisite experience and had remitted the matter only to consider whether the other requirements under Rule 2 were satisfied. On remand, the Collector was bound by that finding and was not competent to reconsider the issue of experience. By rejecting the application again on the very ground that had been concluded against the department's stand in revision, the Collector exceeded the scope of the remand and committed an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and is set aside. The Collector must proceed on the basis that the requirement of Rule 2(b) stands satisfied and decide only the remaining conditions under Rule 2.

---