https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172745 In remand proceedings, the Commissioner could not reopen the brand-name issue where the Tribunal had already finally held that the mark was only a house mark and had remitted the matter solely for fresh classification between Chapter 2 and Chapter 16. An authority acting on remand must remain within the scope of the remand directions, and an unchallenged remand order binds the original authority. The Commissioner was therefore correct in declining to re-examine brand name, and the Revenue could not contest the order on a ground outside the remand. The challenge thus failed, with the brand-name issue barred from re-agitation. en-us Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:01:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172745 In remand proceedings, the Commissioner could not reopen the brand-name issue where the Tribunal had already finally held that the mark was only a house mark and had remitted the matter solely for fresh classification between Chapter 2 and Chapter 16. An authority acting on remand must remain within the scope of the remand directions, and an unchallenged remand order binds the original authority. The Commissioner was therefore correct in declining to re-examine brand name, and the Revenue could not contest the order on a ground outside the remand. The challenge thus failed, with the brand-name issue barred from re-agitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172745