Refund claims on re-imported goods cannot be rejected on grounds outside a limited remand for notification compliance.

A refund claim for re-imported goods could not be rejected on the ground that the original assessment was not challenged when the earlier remand was limited to verifying compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. The Tribunal had already indicated that the notification conditions appeared satisfied and directed verification only of conditions 4(b), 4(c) and 4(d), which was later confirmed by jurisdictional certification. A denovo rejection on a ground outside the remand scope was therefore inconsistent with the remand directions and was unsustainable; the refund rejection was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim arising from re-imported goods could be rejected on the ground that the original assessment was not challenged, despite the earlier remand directing verification of compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 158/95-Cus.

Analysis: The goods had been originally exported, re-imported for quality improvement, assessed to duty under Notification No. 94/96-Cus, and the appellant sought refund under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. In the earlier round, the Tribunal had already held that the notification conditions appeared satisfied and had remanded the matter only to verify compliance with conditions 4(b), 4(c) and 4(d). The appellant thereafter obtained certification from the jurisdictional authority confirming such compliance. In these circumstances, the denovo rejection on the ground that the earlier assessment order had not been appealed was contrary to the remand directions and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The rejection of refund on that ground was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant was held entitled to consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicating authority acting on remand cannot reject a claim on a ground inconsistent with the remand directions when the remand was limited to verifying specified statutory or notification conditions and those conditions are found satisfied.

---