Consequential duty demand fails where the foundational adjudication is remanded; fresh determination of Annual Capacity Production required.

A consequential duty demand could not survive after the foundational adjudication order had already been set aside and remanded. The quantified demand was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted to the original authority for de novo adjudication on merits, including fresh determination of Annual Capacity Production in line with the directions in the connected remand order and after accounting for amounts already paid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand confirmed in the present appeal survived after the main adjudication order was already set aside and remanded, and whether the matter required fresh adjudication on determination of Annual Capacity Production.

Analysis: The impugned demand was only consequential to the earlier adjudication order. Since that main order had already been set aside and remanded, the quantified duty in the present appeal could not stand independently. The proper course was to send the matter back to the original authority for de novo adjudication, with ACP to be determined afresh in accordance with the directions already issued in the connected remand order and after taking the amount already paid into account.

Conclusion: The demand was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh decision on merits. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

Ratio Decidendi: A consequential demand cannot survive once the foundational adjudication order has been set aside and remanded; such demand must also be remitted for de novo consideration.

---