Limited remand requires decision on the exact issue sent back; failure to do so vitiates the order.
When a matter is remanded for a limited factual enquiry, the authority must confine itself to the specific issue sent back and decide it afresh after hearing the parties. Here, the remand required reconsideration of whether the disputed machines were actually non-functional, standby equipment and not used in manufacture, but the later order relied on general improbability and repeated earlier conclusions without meaningfully addressing that question. As a result, the order did not comply with the remand directions and was set aside; the appeal succeeded and the order below was annulled.
Issues: Whether the impugned order complied with the earlier remand directions and addressed the specific question whether the disputed machines were actually non-functional and not used in manufacture.
Analysis: The remand required the lower appellate authority to reconsider the factual plea that the two machines were standby and were not utilised, and to determine that issue afresh after granting hearing. The subsequent order did not engage with that specific factual enquiry in a meaningful way, but instead relied on general observations about improbability and repeated earlier conclusions. Such reasoning did not answer the remand mandate, which called for ascertainment of the appellant's claim of non-use and non-functionality. When a matter is remanded for a limited purpose, the authority must confine itself to and decide that purpose.
Conclusion: The impugned order did not satisfy the terms of remand and was liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order below was annulled for non-compliance with the earlier remand directions.
Ratio Decidendi: An authority acting after remand must decide the specific issue remitted to it, and failure to address that issue vitiates the resulting order.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
