Remand directions bind subordinate authorities; later judicial views cannot justify reopening the refund issue on remand.

A show cause notice issued on remand was held not liable to be quashed at the threshold because it was tentative and the assessee could raise all objections before the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector, acting under remand, remained bound by the appellate directions until set aside by a superior forum and could not reopen the admissibility of the refund claim merely because of a later Supreme Court decision. His enquiry was confined to the matters left open, namely the claimed post-manufacturing elements, their actual incurrence, and the limitation direction already given.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector was liable to be quashed. (ii) Whether the Assistant Collector was bound to follow the directions of the Appellate Collector and could not reopen the admissibility of the refund claim on the basis of a subsequent Supreme Court decision.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The notice was only a show cause notice issued by the authority seized of the matter on remand. It was tentative and provisional, and the petitioner could raise all permissible objections before the Assistant Collector, including the contention that the remand directions remained binding. The mere reference in the notice to a later Supreme Court decision did not, by itself, justify interference at the threshold.

Conclusion: The notice was not liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Assistant Collector was bound to follow the directions of the Appellate Collector and could not reopen the admissibility of the refund claim on the basis of a subsequent Supreme Court decision.

Analysis: A subordinate authority is bound by the directions of the appellate authority until they are set aside by a competent superior forum. The Assistant Collector could not disregard the remand order and deny the refund claim on the footing that a later Supreme Court decision took a different view. His jurisdiction on remand was confined to identifying the post-manufacturing elements claimed, verifying whether they were actually incurred, and applying the limitation direction already given by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The Assistant Collector was bound by the appellate directions and could not reopen the issue of admissibility of the refund claim.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was maintainable in part, but the Assistant Collector was directed to proceed strictly in accordance with the remand directions and confine the enquiry to the matters left open by the appellate order.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority acting on remand cannot disregard the binding directions of the appellate authority merely because it considers them inconsistent with a later judicial pronouncement; until set aside, the appellate order governs the scope of the remanded enquiry.

---