Penalty enhancement in remand proceedings set aside where Revenue made no challenge, while duty demands were sustained.

Duty demands were upheld because the controversy was treated as covered against the appellant by an earlier Tribunal decision on the same issue. The enhanced penalties were set aside because the remand order did not authorise enhancement and the Revenue had not challenged the original penalty; the original penalty amounts were restored. The result was that the appellant succeeded only on the penalty issue, while the duty demands remained confirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the duty demands were sustainable on merits; (ii) whether the penalty could be enhanced in remand proceedings in the absence of any challenge by the Revenue.

Issue (i): Whether the duty demands were sustainable on merits.

Analysis: The issue was treated as covered against the appellant by an earlier Tribunal decision on the same controversy.

Conclusion: The duty demands were upheld, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty could be enhanced in remand proceedings in the absence of any challenge by the Revenue.

Analysis: The penalty in the original adjudication had been fixed at specific amounts, and the remand order did not permit enhancement at the instance of the Revenue. In the absence of any Revenue challenge to the earlier penalty, enhancement in remand was held unsustainable.

Conclusion: The enhanced penalties were set aside and the original penalty amounts were restored, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only on the penalty issue, while the duty demands were maintained.

---