Remand scope and limitation: an issue left open in remand can still be examined in later appellate proceedings.

Where an earlier remand order does not specifically decide limitation, the issue remains open for consideration in later appellate proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) may therefore examine limitation if the remand confined adjudication to other specified points and left that question untouched. On that basis, the Revenue's objection that limitation was beyond the scope of remand was held unsustainable, and the appellate authority's competence to decide the issue was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could examine the issue of limitation when the earlier remand order had not specifically dealt with that issue.

Analysis: The earlier remand had confined the adjudication to specified points and had not decided the question of limitation. Since limitation had not been addressed in the prior remand directions, it remained open for consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue's objection that the issue was beyond the remand was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) was competent to decide the issue of limitation, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier remand order does not determine a particular issue, that issue remains open and can validly be examined in subsequent appellate proceedings.

---