Scope of remand cannot be expanded to reopen final matters or confirm unremanded demands and penalties

The adjudicating authority, on remand, cannot enlarge the scope of the Tribunal's directions by confirming duty or penalties against persons and demands that were not carried in appeal and had already attained finality. Where the remand is limited to the matters actually remitted, any adjudication beyond that scope is contrary to the remand order and cannot stand. Fresh adjudication is required in accordance with law and the earlier remand directions, after giving the appellant a fair opportunity of defence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudicating authority, while deciding the matter after remand, exceeded the scope of the Tribunal's remand order by confirming demands and penalties against parties in whose favour the earlier order had attained finality, and whether the matter therefore required a fresh remand.

Analysis: The remand order had confined further adjudication to the appeal then pending before the Tribunal. The portions of the earlier adjudication order that had not been appealed by the department had attained finality. Although the remand was open in form, its scope remained limited by the parties and issues actually carried in appeal. The subsequent adjudication, by confirming duty and penalties against persons and demands not covered by the remand, travelled beyond the Tribunal's directions and did not comply with the earlier remand order. In these circumstances, a fresh adjudication after giving the appellant a fair opportunity of defence was necessary.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority acted beyond the remand directions, and the matter had to be remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law and the earlier remand order.

Ratio Decidendi: A lower adjudicating authority cannot enlarge the scope of a remand order and decide matters that have attained finality or are outside the appeal remitted for reconsideration.

---