Finality of remand directions bars reopening limitation in de novo adjudication; duty demand confined to the remanded period.

In de novo adjudication following remand, the adjudicating authority had to comply with the Tribunal's earlier final direction limiting the duty demand to six months. The earlier ruling that the extended limitation period under Section 11A was unavailable had attained finality because it was not challenged, so the limitation issue could not be reopened. The Commissioner was therefore bound by the scope of the remand and could not confirm the entire longer demand sought by the Revenue. The proceeding was remanded only for quantification of duty for six months under each show cause notice, and the broader demand was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in de novo proceedings following an earlier remand order restricting the demand to six months, the adjudicating authority could confine the duty demand to a shorter period or whether the Revenue was entitled to confirmation of the entire demand for the longer period.

Analysis: The earlier Tribunal order had finally determined that the extended period under Section 11A was unavailable and that the demand had to be restricted to six months. That direction was not challenged and had attained finality. In such circumstances, the Commissioner in de novo proceedings was bound to give effect to the remand directions and could not reopen the limitation issue or go beyond the quantified period fixed by the Tribunal. Reliance on the retrospective amendment and on decisions dealing with prospective application of Board orders could not assist the Revenue, because the present proceeding was not one of first impression on merits but one governed by the binding earlier order.

Conclusion: The demand could not be confirmed for the entire period claimed by the Revenue. The appeal was allowed only to the extent that the matter was remanded for quantification of duty for six months in respect of each show cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: An issue finally decided in earlier proceedings and not challenged attains finality and must be implemented in de novo adjudication, which cannot exceed the scope of the remand directions.

---