Remand power under Customs law is curtailed; appellate directions on confiscation, penalty, and assessable value exceeded jurisdiction.

After the amendment to Section 35A of the Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to remand a matter for de novo adjudication, and such a remand order is unsustainable. A remand should not direct findings on confiscation, penalty, or fine, because in de novo proceedings the adjudicating authority must examine the issues afresh. Directions on assessable value are also impermissible where they travel beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. The appellate order was therefore set aside, and the matter was returned to the original authority for fresh adjudication by a speaking order after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had jurisdiction to remand the matter for de novo adjudication; (ii) whether the appellate authority could, while remanding, direct confiscation and penalty considerations and address assessable value beyond the scope of the show-cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had jurisdiction to remand the matter for de novo adjudication.

Analysis: The appellate power of remand had been taken away by the amendment to Section 35A of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of the binding legal position, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.

Conclusion: The remand order was without jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority could, while remanding, direct confiscation and penalty considerations and address assessable value beyond the scope of the show-cause notice.

Analysis: In a de novo adjudication, all issues must remain open for fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority. A remand order should not contain findings or recommendations on confiscation, fine, or penalty. The direction relating to assessable value also travelled beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, and that aspect was outside the ambit of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The remand directions on confiscation, penalty, and assessable value were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside for want of jurisdiction, and the matter was sent back to the original authority for fresh adjudication by a speaking order after hearing the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: After the amendment to Section 35A of the Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand a matter for fresh adjudication, and in de novo proceedings the adjudicating authority must decide the issues afresh within the confines of the show-cause notice.

---