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

A conditional remand for factual verification is valid where the appellate order clearly identifies the matters to be examined and is not vague merely because its effect depends on the result. The challenge was confined to alleged vagueness; there was no dispute on classification merits or the applicability of Note 6 to Chapter 32. The remand was understood as requiring verification of whether the goods received were formulated, standardised or prepared dyes and whether the process adopted fell within the CBEC clarification dated 21-4-1993. The objection to the appellate order was rejected, and the remand in favour of the respondents was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority had passed a vague and unsustainable conditional order, and whether there was any reason to interfere with the remand made for verification of the nature of the dyes received and the process adopted.

Analysis: The challenge in appeal was confined to the alleged vagueness of the conditional order. There was no challenge to the merits of classification or to the applicability of Note 6 to Chapter 32. The order was understood as a remand for verification of whether the goods received by the textile mills were formulated, standardised or prepared dyes and whether the process adopted fell within the CBEC clarification dated 21-4-1993. A remand for such verification was held to be open to the appellate authority, and the order was not regarded as vague.

Conclusion: The objection to the appellate order was rejected, and the order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals failed, and the remand order in favour of the respondents was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A conditional remand for factual verification is valid where it clearly identifies the matters to be verified and is not vague merely because it is contingent on the outcome of that verification.

---