Reasoned remand requirement: non-speaking remand order set aside for failing to address binding earlier decision on identical facts.

A remand for fresh adjudication must be supported by reasons showing why fresh consideration is necessary, and the Tribunal must deal with the contention that an earlier decision on identical facts covers the issue. Where the order merely notes reliance on the earlier decision but gives no explanation for its inapplicability and identifies no factual lacuna justifying remand, it is a non-speaking order and cannot be sustained. On that basis, the remand was held unjustified and the issue was answered for the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter for fresh adjudication without dealing with the appellant's contention that the issue was covered by its earlier order on identical facts.

Analysis: The Tribunal's impugned order merely noted the appellant's reliance on its earlier decision but did not explain why that decision would not apply to the present appeals. The order also did not identify any specific factual lacuna or reason why remand was necessary. A remand cannot be made routinely and must be supported by reasons showing the need for fresh consideration. In the absence of such reasons, the order was treated as non-speaking and unsustainable.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in remanding the matter in the manner it did, and the issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

---