Binding remand directions must be followed strictly; departure by the adjudicating authority justified writ interference and annulment.

A subordinate adjudicating authority must comply strictly with a final remand order, and departure from the Tribunal's directions amounts to a jurisdictional error and error of law. Here, the order-in-original passed after remand was held unsustainable because the authority travelled beyond the binding remand scope, introduced its own reasoning, and failed to implement the directed relief linked to Notification No. 62/2007-Cus. The availability of an alternate appeal did not bar writ interference, since the impugned action was contrary to a final and binding remand order. The challenged adjudication was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision in strict compliance with the remand directions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order-in-original passed on remand was sustainable when the adjudicating authority did not follow the Tribunal's earlier remand directions in letter and spirit and whether the writ petition deserved interference despite availability of an appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal's remand order had attained finality and its findings and directions bound the subordinate adjudicating authority. The impugned order was found to travel beyond the remand and to introduce its own reasoning instead of implementing the Tribunal's directions, including the relief linked to Notification No. 62/2007-Cus dated 03.05.2007. In these circumstances, the defect was treated as a jurisdictional error and an error of law. The plea of alternate remedy was not accepted because the impugned action was contrary to a final and binding remand order.

Conclusion: The impugned order-in-original was unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in strict compliance with the Tribunal's remand directions and for grant of the directed relief after hearing the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the challenged adjudication was annulled and the matter was sent back for reconsideration in accordance with the binding remand order.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate authority must act strictly within the bounds of a final remand order, and departure from such directions amounts to a jurisdictional error justifying judicial interference.

---