Rebate adjustment against non-final demand is unsustainable when the earlier order has been set aside and remanded.

Where an earlier order had been set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, no subsisting demand existed for appropriation or adjustment of the sanctioned rebate. The adjustment of rebate against the alleged demand was therefore not legally sustainable, and the department's reliance on other authorities was treated as factually distinguishable and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the department could adjust the sanctioned rebate against the alleged demand when the earlier order had been set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The operative demand had not attained finality because the revisionary authority had set aside the order and remanded the matter. In such a situation, no subsisting demand could be treated as existing for the purpose of appropriation or adjustment of the rebate amount. The authorities relied upon by the department were held distinguishable on facts.

Conclusion: The adjustment of rebate against demand was not sustainable and was set aside.

---