9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ravinder Babu, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 69,59,384/- on fancy/special yarn manufactured by the appellants herein during the period 1992-93 to 1994-95, as a result of its classification under Heading 56.06 of the Schedule to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nswerable to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, was included inadvertently due to clerical mistake in the list of show cause notices covered by the adjudication order dated 29-1-98. The corrigendum stated that the said show cause notice dated 31-1-97 is deleted from the list of cases decided vide Order-in-Original No. 22-27 dated 29-1-98 and is to be considered as having not been adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, under Chapter 51, thereby confirming the adjudication order No. 22-27 dated 29-1-98 in the case of the appellants. In this scenario, the submission of the appellants that the present demand is not sustainable since it has already been set aside by the Assistant Commissioner vide earlier order dated 29-1-98 and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeal's) order dated 19-4-2000, has great force. Althou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss in an absolute sense; and that unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable 'orders'. In the words of Lord Diplock, the order would be presumed to be valid unless the presumption was rebutted in competent legal proceedings by a party e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
