Remand jurisdiction cannot be enlarged: duty demand beyond the remanded goods was held outside the remand scope.

In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority must confine itself strictly to the scope of the earlier remand directions and cannot enlarge the dispute beyond the matter remanded. Here, the remand was limited to re-computation of duty for about 13 lakh PET bottles after reassessing assessable value and clandestine manufacture evidence, but the authority confirmed duty on more than 31 lakh bottles by treating additional clearances as part of the same demand. That approach was held to be beyond the remand remit, and the matter had to be sent back for fresh adjudication within the original remand limits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudicating authority, in remand proceedings, travelled beyond the scope of the earlier remand directions while confirming duty on quantities beyond the disputed goods.

Analysis: The earlier remand had been confined to re-computation of duty in respect of about 13 lakhs PET bottles after determining the correct assessable value and after reappreciating the evidence on clandestine manufacture. In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority is bound by the limits of the remand order and cannot enlarge the controversy. The impugned order, however, proceeded to confirm duty in respect of more than 31 lakhs bottles and performs by treating additional clearances as part of the same demand, which was beyond the remand remit.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority exceeded the scope of the remand. The matter was required to be sent back again for fresh adjudication strictly within the earlier remand directions, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority must confine itself strictly to the scope and directions of the remand order and cannot enlarge the dispute beyond the matter remanded.

---