De novo remand cannot reopen settled issues; unchallenged appellate findings attain finality and new BIS objections cannot be raised later.

A de novo adjudication is confined to the scope of the remand and cannot travel beyond the limited direction issued earlier. Issues decided in an earlier appellate order that was not challenged by the Department attain finality and cannot be reopened in later proceedings. The country of origin certificate was accepted as genuine on the evidence, and clearance of the goods for home consumption was upheld. An objection regarding BIS registration, not raised in the original proceedings, could not be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage. The article states that the appeal failed because no legal infirmity was shown in the impugned order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudicating authority in de novo proceedings could travel beyond the limited remand and whether the Revenue could challenge matters already concluded by the earlier unappealed appellate order; (ii) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in accepting the genuineness of the country of origin certificate and directing clearance of the goods for home consumption, and whether the objection regarding BIS registration could be raised at that stage.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudicating authority in de novo proceedings could travel beyond the limited remand and whether the Revenue could challenge matters already concluded by the earlier unappealed appellate order.

Analysis: Once the earlier appellate order had set aside the original adjudication and confined the matter to verification of the country of origin certificate, the de novo authority was bound by that limited remand. Issues decided by the earlier appellate order, which was not challenged by the Department, attained finality and could not be reopened in the present appeal. The unchallenged order was treated as accepted by the Department, and the de novo adjudication could not expand the scope of remand.

Conclusion: The de novo authority could not go beyond the remand, and the Revenue was barred from re-agitating issues concluded by the earlier unappealed order.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in accepting the genuineness of the country of origin certificate and directing clearance of the goods for home consumption, and whether the objection regarding BIS registration could be raised at that stage.

Analysis: The impugned order gave a reasoned finding that the country of origin certificate was genuine, since the declared origin was not contradicted by the chartered engineer's report. The tribunal also held that the BIS registration objection had not formed part of the original proceedings and could not be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage. No infirmity was found in the appellate authority's approach to the evidence or in its decision to permit clearance on the terms already imposed.

Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in accepting the certificate and directing clearance, and the BIS registration objection was not entertainable.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal failed because the impugned order suffered from no legal infirmity and the issues sought to be reopened were either concluded by the earlier unchallenged order or lay outside the permissible scope of the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A de novo authority is strictly bound by the scope of remand, and issues concluded by an earlier appellate order that has not been appealed by the affected party attain finality and cannot be reopened in a later appeal or remand proceeding.

---