Remand orders bind de novo proceedings: adjudicating authority cannot reopen settled liability under Notification No. 214/86-C.E.

In de novo proceedings after remand, an adjudicating authority must stay within the scope of the remand and cannot reopen a liability issue already conclusively decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had earlier held, in relation to Notification No. 214/86-C.E., that any duty arising from non-fulfilment of the notification conditions would rest on the supplier of raw material, not the manufacturer, and that finding had not been challenged in a higher forum. The lower authority was therefore bound by that remand order and could not fasten duty on the respondents contrary to it. The Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in de novo proceedings after remand, the adjudicating authority could disregard the Tribunal's earlier finding that any duty liability arising from non-fulfilment of the conditions of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. would lie on the supplier of the raw material, and confirm demand against the manufacturer.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that its earlier remand order had conclusively determined the question of liability under the notification and that this finding had not been challenged in any higher forum. A lower authority acting on remand is bound by the scope of the remand and cannot travel beyond the specific directions or reopen issues already decided. The contrary view taken in another case could not override the binding finding recorded in the respondents' own matter.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority was bound by the remand order and could not fasten duty liability on the respondents contrary to that finding. The Revenue's challenge failed.

---