De novo remand required where Tribunal members issued materially different directions on fresh adjudication.

Competing remand directions required de novo adjudication because the two Tribunal members reached remand on different reasoning and imposed materially different directions on the adjudicating authority. The Vice President expressed views on the merits but still remanded the matter without finally settling the controversy, while the Member (Judicial) gave specific observations, findings and directions. The third Member held that the divergence was substantial enough to warrant treatment as a difference of opinion, and the remand had to be understood by reference to the Member (Judicial)'s directions. The matter was therefore to be remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with those directions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the matter was required to be remanded for de novo adjudication keeping in view the observations, findings and directions of the Member (Judicial).

Analysis: The two members of the Tribunal had both directed remand, but on different reasoning and with different directions to the adjudicating authority. The order of the Vice President, though expressing views on the merits, still remanded the matter and did not spell out precise remand directions in a manner that would conclude the controversy finally. The third Member held that the remand directions in the competing orders were materially different and that the safer course was to treat the matter as one requiring reference on a difference of opinion. He further held that the remand had to be understood with reference to the Member (Judicial)'s directions.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be remanded for de novo adjudication in accordance with the observations, findings and directions of the Member (Judicial).

---