Remand proceedings require fresh adjudication within scope; reliance on a set-aside order cannot support the new decision.

In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority must confine itself to the appellate directions and undertake an independent fresh adjudication on the material and submissions requiring reconsideration. Reliance on findings from an earlier order that had already been set aside, or defending that order instead of deciding de novo, is impermissible and amounts to non-compliance with the scope of remand. The CESTAT found that this approach could not be sustained in appellate review, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication order could be sustained when, in remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority relied on findings from an order already set aside and exceeded the remit of the remand.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the earlier remand had been ordered so that the original authority could consider material and submissions that had not been properly examined and pass a fresh reasoned order. In the impugned order, however, the adjudicating authority repeatedly referred to and defended the earlier set-aside order, instead of undertaking an independent de novo adjudication. Such reliance on an order that had ceased to exist was held to be impermissible and contrary to the scope of remand. The Tribunal found that this approach reflected non-compliance with appellate directions and rendered the order unsuitable for appellate affirmation.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority must conduct an independent fresh adjudication within the confines of the remand and cannot rely on or defend findings in an order already set aside by the appellate forum.

---