Remand orders bind lower authorities; they cannot reject a refund on a new ground outside the remand scope.

An authority acting on remand must stay within the Tribunal's directions and cannot reopen issues already finally decided. Where entitlement to set-off had been determined and the remand was limited to document verification and quantification, rejection of the refund claim on unjust enrichment exceeded the scope of remand and was impermissible. The note therefore reflects that the remand order bound the lower authority, and the refund claim was ultimately allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the lower authority could travel beyond the terms of the Tribunal's remand order and reject the refund claim on unjust enrichment when entitlement to set-off had already been decided.

Analysis: The Tribunal had earlier held that the appellants were entitled to set-off of duty paid on cut tobacco used in the manufacture of cigarettes and had remanded the matter only for verification of documents and quantification of the admissible amount. The remand directions were binding on the authorities below, and they could not reassess the merits or introduce a new ground of rejection outside the scope of the remand. In that backdrop, denial of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment was not permissible.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the lower authorities were bound by the remand order and could not reject the claim on unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the refund claim was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority acting on remand cannot exceed the confines of the remand directions and cannot deny relief on a ground already foreclosed by the earlier final decision.

---