https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72866 A lower authority on re-adjudication remains bound by an unreversed tribunal finding that repairing of cops does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The remand did not authorise the Collector to ignore that concluded legal determination or reopen excisability. Accordingly, a duty demand on repaired cops, including on their removal, could not be sustained while the earlier tribunal conclusion remained undisturbed. The operative principle is that a de novo exercise must stay within the scope of the remand and cannot contradict binding appellate findings on the same issue. en-us Mon, 30 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 May 2011 15:29:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72866 A lower authority on re-adjudication remains bound by an unreversed tribunal finding that repairing of cops does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The remand did not authorise the Collector to ignore that concluded legal determination or reopen excisability. Accordingly, a duty demand on repaired cops, including on their removal, could not be sustained while the earlier tribunal conclusion remained undisturbed. The operative principle is that a de novo exercise must stay within the scope of the remand and cannot contradict binding appellate findings on the same issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72866