https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214336 In de novo adjudication following remand, the adjudicating authority had to comply with the Tribunal's earlier final direction limiting the duty demand to six months. The earlier ruling that the extended limitation period under Section 11A was unavailable had attained finality because it was not challenged, so the limitation issue could not be reopened. The Commissioner was therefore bound by the scope of the remand and could not confirm the entire longer demand sought by the Revenue. The proceeding was remanded only for quantification of duty for six months under each show cause notice, and the broader demand was not sustainable. en-us Wed, 02 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214336 In de novo adjudication following remand, the adjudicating authority had to comply with the Tribunal's earlier final direction limiting the duty demand to six months. The earlier ruling that the extended limitation period under Section 11A was unavailable had attained finality because it was not challenged, so the limitation issue could not be reopened. The Commissioner was therefore bound by the scope of the remand and could not confirm the entire longer demand sought by the Revenue. The proceeding was remanded only for quantification of duty for six months under each show cause notice, and the broader demand was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214336