Remand cannot reopen settled deduction issues when lower authorities must follow binding Tribunal directions strictly.

On remand, the authorities could not reopen the admissibility of deductions on an equalised basis or disregard the Tribunal's earlier directions. The Tribunal had already confined the remand to segregation of expenses exclusively relatable to excisable goods, so the lower authorities were bound to implement that limited mandate rather than re-adjudicate the settled issue on the strength of departmental circulars. The commentary states that doing otherwise amounted to sitting in appeal over a binding appellate order. The disallowance of deductions on an equalised basis was therefore not sustainable, and the matter had to be decided afresh strictly within the scope of the earlier remand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudicating and first appellate authorities were justified in re-examining the admissibility of deductions on equalised basis and in disregarding the Tribunal's earlier remand directions while finalising the assessment.

Analysis: The matter had already been remanded by the Tribunal with a clear direction to allow deduction of the relevant expenses on the lines indicated in the earlier order and to confine the remand to segregation of expenses exclusively relatable to excisable goods. In the remand proceedings, the lower authorities nevertheless re-opened the substantive question of admissibility of deductions and relied upon departmental circulars to deny relief. Such an approach amounted to sitting in appeal over the Tribunal's earlier decision. Judicial orders of the Tribunal were binding on the authorities below unless set aside by a higher forum, and the authorities were required to carry out the remand directions rather than re-adjudicate the settled issue.

Conclusion: The disallowance of deductions on equalised basis could not be sustained, and the matter had to be sent back for fresh decision in accordance with the Tribunal's earlier directions.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned orders were set aside, with the matter remanded to the original authority only for the limited exercise directed earlier.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority acting on remand cannot reopen or contradict an issue already concluded by a binding appellate order, and must confine itself strictly to the scope of the remand.

---