Remand compliance and assessable value principles upheld: freight charges and excess money credit utilisation were both sustained.

Where a matter is remanded for fresh decision on the evidence on record, the authority must independently assess the factual material and cannot rely only on an earlier order; here, the appellate order was set aside and the adjudication orders restored because the remand directions were not properly followed. Freight and handling charges were not excluded from assessable value for exemption purposes because no evidence showed they related to loading or unloading outside the factory gate, and that challenge failed. Excess utilisation of money credit was also upheld because the respondents drew credit when the balance was nil, with no explanation or evidence to justify the overdrawal, so that challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether freight and handling charges recovered from buyers were liable to be included in the assessable value for computing the aggregate value of clearances under the exemption notification; (ii) Whether the respondents had contravened the conditions governing utilisation of money credit by availing credit in excess of the available balance.

Issue (i): Whether freight and handling charges recovered from buyers were liable to be included in the assessable value for computing the aggregate value of clearances under the exemption notification.

Analysis: The matter had been remanded for fresh decision on the factual record, with liberty to consider the earlier appellate order only as an aid. On remand, the adjudicating authority found that no evidence had been produced to show that the freight and handling charges related to loading and unloading outside the factory gate. In the absence of supporting material, the plea against inclusion of such charges was rejected.

Conclusion: The finding that freight and handling charges were not excluded was sustained, and the challenge on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents had contravened the conditions governing utilisation of money credit by availing credit in excess of the available balance.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority recorded that no specific explanation or evidence was produced to justify the excess utilisation of credit. It was found that credit had been availed when the balance stood at nil, resulting in overdrawal and violation of the relevant condition attached to the notification governing the scheme.

Conclusion: The finding of excess and unauthorised utilisation of money credit was upheld, and the challenge on this issue failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order setting aside the adjudication was found unsustainable for non-compliance with the remand directions and want of evidentiary basis, so the adjudication orders were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a matter is remanded for fresh decision on the evidence on record, an appellate authority cannot substitute the remand mandate by merely relying on an earlier decision without independently examining the factual findings and supporting material.

---