https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123753 The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Dy. Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to confirm duty demand while a remission application was pending. The rejection of the remission application and confirmation of duty demand were contradictory. The appeal against the recovery letter was dismissed as non-appealable, as it was a recovery proceeding. The appellant's failure to challenge the rejection of remission meant they were bound by its consequences, leading to the rejection of the appeal on grounds of non-maintainability. en-us Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:09:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123753 The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Dy. Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to confirm duty demand while a remission application was pending. The rejection of the remission application and confirmation of duty demand were contradictory. The appeal against the recovery letter was dismissed as non-appealable, as it was a recovery proceeding. The appellant's failure to challenge the rejection of remission meant they were bound by its consequences, leading to the rejection of the appeal on grounds of non-maintainability. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123753