Abatement claim pending: Tribunal upheld keeping proceedings in abeyance until eligibility is decided under the binding remand direction.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's challenge to an order keeping proceedings in abeyance pending decision on an abatement claim was not sustainable. The lower appellate authority had followed an earlier remand direction for denovo consideration, and that unchallenged direction had attained finality. Applying the Board's circular, the Commissioner was required first to decide eligibility for abatement; where that claim remained pending for an extended period, duty recovery was not to be insisted upon in advance. No infirmity was found in maintaining the matter in abeyance, and the impugned order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeal against the order keeping the proceedings in abeyance pending decision on the abatement claim was maintainable and whether the impugned order suffered from any infirmity.

Analysis: The earlier Tribunal order had directed denovo consideration and the lower appellate authority had acted in accordance with that direction. The earlier order had not been challenged and had attained finality. The Board's circular required the Commissioner to first decide eligibility for abatement, and if the processor was eligible, duty recovery was not to be insisted upon first. Since the abatement claim remained undecided even after a long lapse of time, no error was found in keeping the matter in abeyance.

Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order of the lower appellate authority was sustained because it accorded with the earlier binding remand direction and the pending abatement claim.

---