Limited remand and area-based excise exemption: authority cannot broaden inquiry, and unit continuity survives transfer and product changes.

A limited remand binds the authority to the specific question remitted, so it cannot reject area-based excise exemption on unrelated grounds once the remanded issue is answered in the assessee's favour. The article also notes that the exemption attached to the eligible unit was not lost by transfer of ownership, change of products, or modifications to plant and machinery, and that the option could still be exercised after the sunset date where the notification and binding departmental clarifications permitted such continuity. On those principles, the exemption claim was upheld and contrary findings were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority could travel beyond the limited scope of the remand and deny the exemption on grounds not covered by the remand order; (ii) Whether the unit remained eligible for the area-based excise exemption after transfer, change of products, and filing of the declaration after the sunset date.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority could travel beyond the limited scope of the remand and deny the exemption on grounds not covered by the remand order.

Analysis: The remand order had confined the fresh decision to verification of the date on which intimation was filed for availing the exemption. The only matter required to be re-examined was whether the declaration was filed on 27.08.2013 or on 06.02.2015. Once the authority on remand accepted the appellant's case on that limited issue, it could not reopen unrelated questions such as overall eligibility, ownership transfer, or the effect of the earlier withdrawal by the original unit. An authority acting after remand must remain within the confines of the issue specifically remitted.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption on grounds beyond the remand was not sustainable and was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the unit remained eligible for the area-based excise exemption after transfer, change of products, and filing of the declaration after the sunset date.

Analysis: The exemption was attached to the eligible unit in the specified area, and the governing notification did not prohibit addition of new products, modification of plant and machinery, or transfer of the unit to a new owner during the exemption period. The Board's circular clarified that such changes would not extinguish the benefit, and the TRU clarification stated that the option could be exercised even after the sunset clause, since the sunset condition governed eligibility and not the timing of the declaration. The factual findings also showed purchase of the entire industrial unit, not merely land and premises, so the benefit could not be denied on the premise that a different unit had come into existence.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the exemption under the notification and the contrary findings were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders could not stand, because the authorities exceeded the remand mandate and also misapplied the exemption notification and the binding departmental clarifications. The appeals were consequently allowed and the exemption claim was accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a remand is limited to a specific factual or legal question, the authority on remand cannot enlarge the inquiry beyond that question, and an area-based exemption attached to an eligible unit cannot be denied merely because the unit changed ownership, added products, or exercised the option after the sunset date when the governing notification and binding clarifications permit such continuity.

---