Captive use of de-mineralized water requires fresh adjudication where factual examination of duty liability remains incomplete.

Where duty liability on captive use of de-mineralized water had not been properly examined, and the factual position on consumption and supply to different units remained unclear, the matter required fresh adjudication. The earlier drop of demand on merits and limitation did not obviate the need for a complete factual inquiry, especially since an earlier order in the same dispute had already been set aside and the case was pending on remand. The original adjudicating authority was directed to reconsider the issue de novo after granting both sides an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on the question of duty liability and captive use of de-mineralized water.

Analysis: The demand had been dropped by the adjudicating authority both on merits and on limitation, but the record showed that the factual position regarding captive consumption and supply of water to different units had not been properly examined. The Tribunal also noted that an earlier order on the same matter had already been set aside and the case was pending on remand. In these circumstances, the proper course was fresh consideration by the original adjudicating authority after giving both sides an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for de novo decision by the original adjudicating authority.

---