Refund claim cannot be finally rejected as premature while remanded adjudication on entitlement remains pending.

Where entitlement to refund depends on substantive adjudication still pending in de-novo proceedings pursuant to an earlier remand, the refund claim should not be finally rejected as premature. The pending liability issue had not attained finality, so the proper course was to remit the refund claim for fresh consideration along with the remanded adjudication. The rejection was not sustained and the matter was sent back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with the earlier remand order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was liable to be rejected as premature when the de-novo adjudication pursuant to the earlier remand was still pending, and whether the matter required a fresh decision by the Commissioner.

Analysis: The refund claim had been filed while the de-novo proceedings ordered earlier by the Tribunal were still pending before the Commissioner. Since the authorities below treated the claim as premature on that basis, and the underlying liability issue had not yet attained finality in the remanded proceedings, the proper course was to have the present refund claim considered afresh along with the pending de-novo adjudication.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was not sustained, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with the earlier remand order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive adjudication affecting entitlement is still pending pursuant to an earlier remand, a refund claim dependent on that adjudication may be remanded for fresh consideration rather than finally rejected as premature.

---