Binding Supreme Court remand must be followed; CESTAT sustained recomputed duty and penalty after no calculation error was shown.

A lower tribunal must implement a binding Supreme Court remand direction as it stands and cannot decline to follow it on the plea that the order is per incuriam; any such challenge must be taken before the Supreme Court itself. Applying that principle, CESTAT found that the Commissioner had only recomputed duty in compliance with the remand and no calculation error was shown. The recomputed duty demand was therefore sustained, along with the penalty, and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could disregard the Supreme Court's remand direction on the ground that the earlier order was per incuriam, and whether the duty recomputed by the Commissioner pursuant to that direction called for interference.

Analysis: The assessee sought to rely on a later amendment to the exemption notification and contended that the Supreme Court's earlier order was per incuriam because the explanatory memorandum was not noticed. The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's order had to be implemented as it stood and that, if the assessee wished to challenge it as per incuriam, the proper course was to approach the Supreme Court itself by appropriate proceedings. The Tribunal further found that the Commissioner had merely carried out the remand direction by recomputing duty and that no calculation error was shown in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to interfere with the duty computation and upheld the order-in-original, including the penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the Tribunal treated the Supreme Court's remand as binding and sustained the recomputed duty demand in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A lower tribunal cannot ignore or correct a binding Supreme Court direction on the plea that it is per incuriam; the order must be implemented unless modified by the Supreme Court itself.

---