Conditional remand for factual verification is not vague when the issues to be checked are clearly identifiable.

A conditional remand directing verification of whether the goods received were formulated, standardised or prepared dyes, and whether the process used to make printing paste fell within the relevant departmental circular, was not vague merely because it required factual inquiry. The Tribunal held that the appellate authority's directions were sufficiently identifiable and within jurisdiction. Since the challenge was confined to alleged vagueness and did not assail the merits of classification or the applicability of Note 6 to Chapter 32, there was no basis to interfere. The remand was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Collector (Appeals) was vague and liable to interference, and whether the matter could be remanded for verification of the nature of the dyes received and the process adopted in making printing paste.

Analysis: The challenge before the Tribunal was confined to the alleged vagueness of the appellate order. The merits of classification and the applicability of Note 6 to Chapter 32 were not assailed. The appellate authority had directed verification of whether the goods received were formulated, standardised or prepared dyes and whether the process adopted fell within the scope of the departmental circular/order dated 21-4-1993. Such a course was open to the authority and did not render the order meaningless or vague.

Conclusion: The order of remand/conditional verification was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained the appellate authority's direction for verification and declined to interfere, leaving the assessee with the benefit of the upheld remand.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand order directing factual verification is not vague merely because it is conditional, where the issues to be verified are identifiable and within the authority's jurisdiction.

---