Demand based on unchallenged remission rejection survives when the underlying order is not appealed.

A demand founded on rejection of a remission of duty application was sustained because the rejection order had been conveyed to the assessee and was never challenged. The appellate record showed that the demand was consequential to that unassailed rejection, so the later challenge to the demand alone could not unsettle the underlying basis. The appeal was rejected as lacking merit, and the consequential demand remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained when the rejection of the remission of duty application had not been challenged.

Analysis: The demand arose after rejection of the request for remission of duty. The rejection order had been specifically referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals) as having been conveyed to the appellants, and no appeal had been filed against that rejection. In these circumstances, the demand based on the unchallenged rejection order survived.

Conclusion: The appeal was without merit and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The consequential demand remained undisturbed because the appellants did not assail the order rejecting remission of duty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a demand is founded on an unchallenged order rejecting remission of duty, the subsequent appeal against the demand fails.

---