Remand on clear float glass classification upheld where settled precedent governed the exemption dispute.

A remand for fresh adjudication on the classification of clear float glass and the related exemption claim was upheld because the issue was already covered by Tribunal precedent treating non-tinted clear float glass with an absorbent, non-reflecting layer as classifiable under CTH 70051090 and eligible for Notification No. 46/2011-CUS benefit. The remand was not found patently illegal or perverse, and no interference was warranted because a remand does not finally determine the parties' rights. Judicial discipline required the original authority to reconsider the matter in line with the settled legal position.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on the classification of clear float glass and the related exemption claim under Notification No. 46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011, and whether the remand order called for interference.

Analysis: The classification dispute had already been settled by earlier decisions of the Tribunal holding that clear float glass having an absorbent, non-reflecting layer and being non-tinted falls under CTH 70051090 and qualifies for the exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-CUS. The remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was based on that settled position and did not suffer from patent illegality or perversity. Remand orders do not finally determine the rights of the parties, and appellate interference is ordinarily unwarranted where the matter is sent back for de novo adjudication. Judicial discipline required adherence to the binding precedent already operating on the issue.

Conclusion: The remand order was upheld and no interference was warranted; the Revenue's appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to disturb the order remanding the matter for fresh consideration and left the classification and exemption issue to be decided afresh by the original authority in accordance with the settled legal position.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand order based on settled precedent, which does not finally adjudicate rights and is neither patently illegal nor perverse, ordinarily does not justify appellate interference.

---