Remand confined to penalty issue: Commissioner acted within scope, and challenge to the penalty order failed.

The Commissioner complied with the remand because the Larger Bench had expressly confined reconsideration to the penalty issue under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that the remand covered only that limited question, so addressing penalty alone was within the scope of the directions and did not amount to non-compliance. It further held that it could not review the Larger Bench order itself; any challenge to that order had to be pursued before an appropriate higher forum or by seeking rectification before the Larger Bench. The challenge to the penalty order therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner had failed to carry out the remand directions by confining himself to the question of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The remand order of the Larger Bench had expressly limited reconsideration to the penalty issue. The Tribunal noted that the Larger Bench had disposed of both appeals and had remanded the matter only on that limited aspect. Since the Commissioner addressed only the question remitted for reconsideration, there was no failure to follow the remand directions. The Tribunal also held that it could not sit in judgment over the Larger Bench order; any grievance against that order lay in an appropriate higher forum or by seeking rectification before the Larger Bench.

Conclusion: The Commissioner acted within the scope of the remand, and the challenge to the penalty order failed.

---