Binding remand limits and final appellate findings bar new grounds for denying refund in de novo proceedings.

In de novo proceedings, an adjudicating authority is bound by the scope of remand and by final appellate findings, and cannot deny refund on a fresh ground inconsistent with those directions. Where earlier appellate and Tribunal orders had finally held that assessment was provisional for all brands and had required finalisation on that basis, a new basis for rejecting refund could not be introduced. The rejection was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with consequential relief granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be rejected in de novo proceedings on a fresh ground contrary to the earlier appellate directions and final findings on provisional assessment for all brands.

Analysis: The earlier appellate and Tribunal orders had already determined that the assessment was provisional for all brands and had directed finalization on that basis. Those directions were not challenged further and had attained finality. In de novo proceedings, the lower authority could not introduce a new ground inconsistent with the binding earlier findings and appellate mandate. A fresh case beyond the scope of remand could not be carved out to deny refund.

Conclusion: The rejection of refund on a newly raised ground was unsustainable and was set aside, with the appeal allowed and consequential relief granted.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not stand because it departed from the final appellate directions governing provisional assessment and refund eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: In de novo proceedings, the adjudicating authority is bound by the scope of remand and by final appellate findings, and cannot deny relief on a new ground inconsistent with those binding directions.

---