De novo adjudication must address limitation as well as merits where earlier remand left all issues open.

Where an earlier remand leaves all issues open for de novo adjudication, the authority must decide both merits and limitation. The Commissioner erred in proceeding on the assumption that limitation had not been raised, even though challenge to invocation of the extended period had been specifically taken earlier. The impugned order therefore could not be sustained, and the penalty appeal also ceased to survive once the main order was set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits and limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits and limitation.

Analysis: The remand order passed earlier had kept all issues open for de novo consideration. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner was incorrect in stating that limitation had not been raised earlier, since the challenge to invocation of the extended period had been specifically taken in the earlier appeal. In these circumstances, the impugned order could not be sustained. The appeal concerning penalty also ceased to survive once the main order was set aside.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits as well as on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier remand leaves all issues open, the authority must decide limitation as well as merits in de novo proceedings, and an order based on an erroneous assumption that limitation was not raised cannot stand.

---