Annual production capacity disputes can be treated as substantive challenges, and remand is proper when the computation basis becomes legally unsustainable.

A dispute over annual production capacity was treated as a substantive challenge to the capacity determination, even though the immediate communication rejecting objections was not independently appealable. The Tribunal could therefore entertain the matter because the assessee had consistently questioned the original fixation and sought revision. A remand for fresh refixation was also upheld because the computation was affected by a later legal position that length of galleries could not be included in determining annual production capacity. The Tribunal's order was sustained on both maintainability and remand, and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in entertaining an appeal against the communication of the Deputy Commissioner which was not itself an appealable order. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter for refixation of annual production capacity despite no direct challenge to the original fixation order.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in entertaining an appeal against the communication of the Deputy Commissioner which was not itself an appealable order.

Analysis: The dispute was not confined to a mere belated challenge to a non-appealable communication. The assessee had consistently questioned the fixation of annual production capacity, had earlier made representations, and had sought revision of the determination. The communication only rejected those objections and directed that the grievance ought to have been raised against the fixation order itself. On the record, the challenge remained in substance a challenge to the determination of annual production capacity.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in treating the matter as an appeal concerning fixation of annual production capacity; the objection on maintainability was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter for refixation of annual production capacity despite no direct challenge to the original fixation order.

Analysis: The Tribunal's remand was supported by the later legal position that length of galleries could not be included while determining annual production capacity. That legal development materially affected the computation made under the capacity determination rules. Since the assessee sought revision of the capacity determination and the impugned computation stood on a basis later found to be legally unsustainable, remand for fresh determination was appropriate.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter for refixation of annual production capacity.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed on both questions, the Tribunal's order was sustained, and the appeal did not warrant interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substance of the dispute is the fixation of annual production capacity, a challenge cannot be defeated merely because the immediate communication is not independently appealable, and a remand is proper when the capacity determination rests on a component later held inadmissible in law.

---