Finality of prior appellate orders bars reopening confirmed duty demand in remand proceedings.

An earlier order-in-appeal that confirmed the admitted duty liability and remanded only the balance demand attained finality because the appellant did not challenge it. In the remand proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore confined to the issues left open and could not reopen the portion of the demand already upheld. The corresponding penalty was set aside only to the extent linked to the balance demand, while the confirmed amount remained undisturbed. A remand obtained at the instance of the Revenue did not revive issues already concluded between the parties, and no surviving grievance existed against a demand merely ing the earlier final determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could dispute the confirmation of duty and penalties in the remand proceedings when the earlier appellate order confirming part of the demand had not been challenged and had attained finality.

Analysis: The earlier order-in-appeal had already confirmed the admitted duty liability and had remanded only the balance demand for fresh consideration. That order was never challenged by the appellant and therefore attained finality. When the matter returned in remand, the Commissioner (Appeals) confined the confirmation only to the amount already upheld earlier, while setting aside the remaining demand and the corresponding penalty. The remand ordered at the instance of the Revenue, directed against the appellate authority's power to remand, did not reopen matters that had already become final between the parties.

Conclusion: The appellant had no surviving grievance against the impugned order insofar as it merely repeated the demand that had already attained finality in the earlier order. The challenge failed.

---