Fresh notice on remand is not required when a case is simply sent back for reconsideration after setting aside the original order.

Where an appellate authority remands a matter by merely setting aside the original order and sending it back for reconsideration, the remand does not create a right to a fresh notice as a condition precedent to the renewed adjudication. Applying the Full Bench view, the court held that a simple remand for adjudication again does not require reissue of notice and does not, on that ground alone, entitle the affected party to return of seized goods. The writ petition therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after remand by the appellate authority for adjudication by the Collector of Central Excise, the petitioner was entitled to a fresh notice before decision of the matter and consequential return of the seized gold.

Analysis: The remand order merely set aside the original adjudication and sent the case back for adjudication by the Collector of Central Excise so that the appellant could pursue the appropriate remedy if still aggrieved. The Court applied the Full Bench view that where a matter is remanded simply for reconsideration or adjudication again, without a direction for fresh adjudication, a fresh notice is not required and no right to return of the seized goods arises on that ground.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a fresh notice or to return of the seized gold on the ground urged.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed as the remand did not confer any right to a fresh notice before adjudication by the Collector of Central Excise.

Ratio Decidendi: When an appellate authority remands a case merely by setting aside the order and sending it back for adjudication, without directing a fresh adjudication, the affected party is not entitled to a fresh notice as a condition precedent to the renewed decision.

---