Binding remand directions and limitation objection led to modification of the pre-deposit burden in favour of the assessee.

A Tribunal pre-deposit order was found unsustainable because it was issued again without complying with the High Court's earlier direction to first decide the limitation objection under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The court treated that omission as non-compliance with a binding remand direction and set the order aside. However, because the record contained an admission that Rs. 35 lakhs related to the normal period, the limitation objection did not affect that admitted portion. To avoid further delay, the matter was not remitted again, and the assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 35 lakhs while the balance pre-deposit was dispensed with.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit of Rs. 1 crore could stand when it did not comply with the High Court's earlier direction to consider the limitation issue under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, and what interim deposit relief should follow.

Analysis: The earlier order had been interfered with because the limitation contention had not been adjudicated. The fresh order again directed deposit without addressing that issue, showing non-compliance with the binding directions issued by the High Court. That order could therefore not be sustained. At the same time, the record showed an admission that Rs. 35 lakhs related to the normal period, so the limitation objection had no relevance to that admitted portion. In view of the long pendency and the desirability of avoiding further delay, the matter was not remitted again.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's pre-deposit order was set aside, and the assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 35 lakhs within the stipulated time, with the balance pre-deposit dispensed with.

Final Conclusion: The appeal resulted in partial relief to the assessee by modifying the pre-deposit burden and annulling the Tribunal's impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit order passed in disregard of a binding remand direction to decide a jurisdictional or statutory objection cannot be sustained, though the court may still tailor interim relief on the basis of admissions on record and the interests of expeditious disposal.

---