https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367624 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. en-us Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:19:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367624 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367624