Scope of remand controls classification and demand; an authority cannot confirm a heading beyond appellate directions.

An adjudicating authority cannot exceed the limits of a Tribunal's remand and confirm a classification or demand beyond the appellate directions. The Gujarat High Court held that, in the dispute over emery stones used in domestic electrical flour mills, the impugned order had gone beyond the remand by classifying the goods under Chapter Heading 85.09 and sustaining the demand in the original proceedings. To that extent, the order could not stand and was quashed and set aside. The petition was therefore allowed only to the limited extent of the remand transgression.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order, to the extent it went beyond the Tribunal's remand direction and classified the goods under Chapter Heading 85.09, was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The dispute concerned the classification of emery stones manufactured for domestic electrical flour mills. The order under challenge had proceeded beyond the limited scope of the remand made by the Tribunal and had recorded a classification under Chapter Heading 85.09, thereby sustaining the demand in the original proceedings. Since the petition was decided on the same reasoning as the connected matter, the Court held that the order could not stand to the extent it transgressed the remand.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside to the extent it exceeded the Tribunal's remand and confirmed classification under Chapter Heading 85.09; the petition was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded, and the classification confirmation and consequential demand were set aside to the limited extent indicated by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicating authority cannot enlarge the scope of a remand and confirm a classification or demand beyond the directions of the appellate forum.

---