Limited reference jurisdiction and vague remand directions cannot stand where the scope of reconsideration is left unclear.

A third member on reference must confine his opinion strictly to the question referred, and cannot introduce an independent basis for remand beyond the limited controversy before the bench. The High Court also held that a remand order stating only that the appeal was allowed as remand, without defining the scope or purpose of remand, is legally uncertain and unsustainable because it leaves the adjudicating authority unclear on what must be reconsidered. The impugned order was set aside and the matters were restored for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the third member could go beyond the limited question referred to him and take a view different from both members of the bench; (ii) Whether the remand order passed by the bench, after receipt of the third member's opinion, was ambiguous and legally unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the third member could go beyond the limited question referred to him and take a view different from both members of the bench.

Analysis: The reference to the third member was confined to the difference between the two members on whether the matter should be remanded for a determination of manufacture or whether the appeals should be dismissed. The third member was required to answer only within that controversy. By travelling beyond the reference and introducing a different basis for remand, he exceeded the limits of the jurisdiction conferred by the reference.

Conclusion: The third member could not go beyond the question referred and his opinion was beyond jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the remand order passed by the bench, after receipt of the third member's opinion, was ambiguous and legally unsustainable.

Analysis: The operative order merely stated that the appeal was allowed as remand, without clarifying the scope or purpose of remand. It did not specify whether the adjudicating authority had to examine manufacture or only recompute assessable value and duty. Such uncertainty left the matter open to conflicting interpretations and rendered the disposal legally unclear.

Conclusion: The remand order was ambiguous and could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the connected appeals were restored to the Tribunal for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A third member deciding a reference must confine himself strictly to the question referred, and a remand order that does not clearly state the scope of remand is legally unsustainable.

---