Limited remand and finality of earlier order barred reopening duty merits; re-quantification alone was permissible.

A limited remand confined the authorities to re-quantifying duty under the reduced annual capacity already determined on changed parameters; they could not reopen the merits or apply actual production for 1996-97. The Tribunal held that its earlier final order in the same assessee's case had attained finality, so judicial discipline required strict compliance with the remand directions. A contrary decision in another matter could not displace that binding determination. The operative effect was that liability had to be recomputed only in accordance with Rule 4 and the earlier directions, without revisiting the substantive basis of demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the Tribunal had finally determined the annual capacity on the basis of changed parameters and remanded the matter only for re-quantification, the lower authorities could reopen the merits and apply the actual production of 1996-97; (ii) whether the earlier final order in the assessee's own case and the decision in Doaba Steel Rolling Mills barred such reopening in the present proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether, after the Tribunal had finally determined the annual capacity on the basis of changed parameters and remanded the matter only for re-quantification, the lower authorities could reopen the merits and apply the actual production of 1996-97.

Analysis: The Tribunal's earlier order had conclusively held that the reduced capacity under Rule 4 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 would apply on changed parameters, and that Rule 5 could not be used to fasten liability on the basis of actual production for 1996-97. The remand was confined only to quantification of duty in accordance with that finding. Once the remand was so limited, neither the adjudicating authority nor the appellate authority was entitled to revisit the substantive determination or depart from the Tribunal's directions.

Conclusion: The lower authorities were not justified in reopening the merits and had to confine themselves to re-quantification under Rule 4.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier final order in the assessee's own case and the decision in Doaba Steel Rolling Mills barred such reopening in the present proceedings.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the earlier order in the assessee's own case had attained finality because the department did not challenge it. The principle in Doaba Steel Rolling Mills, dealing with an order passed in some other case, could not override a final order already binding in the present matter. Judicial discipline required the authorities to follow the binding remand directions, and the demand could not be recomputed on a contrary basis merely by relying on another decision.

Conclusion: The finality of the earlier order in the assessee's own case governed the matter, and Doaba Steel Rolling Mills did not justify departure from it.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on the question of liability computation, and the matter was sent back only for re-quantification in accordance with the Tribunal's earlier directions.

Ratio Decidendi: When a Tribunal's final order in the same assessee's case has limited remand to re-quantification, the authorities cannot reopen the substantive issue or disregard that direction by relying on a contrary decision in another case.

---