https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123335 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. en-us Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123335 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123335