Remand proceedings cannot reopen finally settled brand-name disputes when the remand is limited to tariff classification.

In remand proceedings, the Commissioner could not reopen the brand-name issue where the Tribunal had already finally held that the mark was only a house mark and had remitted the matter solely for fresh classification between Chapter 2 and Chapter 16. An authority acting on remand must remain within the scope of the remand directions, and an unchallenged remand order binds the original authority. The Commissioner was therefore correct in declining to re-examine brand name, and the Revenue could not contest the order on a ground outside the remand. The challenge thus failed, with the brand-name issue barred from re-agitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in remand proceedings, the Commissioner could reopen the question of brand name when the Tribunal had already conclusively held that the mark used was only a house mark and had remitted the matter only for re-determination of classification between Chapter 2 and Chapter 16.

Analysis: The earlier remand order had expressly settled the brand-name controversy against the Revenue and had confined further proceedings to the limited task of deciding the correct tariff classification and consequential duty demand, if any. Once that order was not challenged, it attained finality and bound the original authority. The Commissioner was therefore right in not re-examining the brand-name issue. The Revenue could not attack the impugned order on a ground that fell outside the scope of the remand. The appeal was also supported by the principle that an authority acting on remand cannot travel beyond the remand directions.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed; the mark was not open to re-agitation in remand proceedings, and the appeal was decided against the Revenue.

---