https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350889 In de novo proceedings following a limited remand, the adjudicating authority was bound to confine itself to the specific factual issue remitted for determination and could not reopen unrelated matters already covered by the Tribunal's earlier final decision. Because the authority went beyond the remand direction and examined issues such as tariff restructuring and classification reasoning instead of only comparing the Pune and Ankleshwar processes, the order was held unsustainable. The demand and penalty were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Dec 2017 13:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350889 In de novo proceedings following a limited remand, the adjudicating authority was bound to confine itself to the specific factual issue remitted for determination and could not reopen unrelated matters already covered by the Tribunal's earlier final decision. Because the authority went beyond the remand direction and examined issues such as tariff restructuring and classification reasoning instead of only comparing the Pune and Ankleshwar processes, the order was held unsustainable. The demand and penalty were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350889