9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fabrics; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under order dated 24-12-98, decided the annual capacity on provisional basis pending verification of the stenter machines and correctness of their declaration; that after the verification, the Deputy Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 2660/2000, dated 14-11-2000, determined their total capacity of production including length of galleries; that, subsequently, in view of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Surat, relying upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Bhilwara Processors Ltd. v. C.C.E., 2001 (127) E.L.T. 679 (Tri. LB) = 2001 (42) RLT 429 (CEGAT-LB) the galleries are not forming part and parcel of the Hot Air Stenter, they filed the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction; that, moreover, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order in violation to the principles of natural justice; that it has been held by the Madras High Court in the case of Gemini Metal Works v. Union of India, 1985 (22) E.L.T. 27 (Mad.) = 1985 ECR 2457 (Madras) that it is well established by now that an order, which is found to be void for violation of principles of natural justice, can be attacked in collateral proceedings initiated on the basis of such void order. He, therefore, contended that the present proceedings, relating to denial of refund claim filed by them, are collateral proceedings in which the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is ab initio void can be challenged. 3. Countering the arguments, Mrs. Charul Barnw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termination Rules, 1998. It can, therefore, be not claimed by the appellants that the said determination of their annual capacity of production was in excess of authority and without jurisdiction. As rightly emphasised by the learned S.D.R., the appellants had not challenged the said order determining their annual capacity after taking into consideration the length of galleries attached to the stenter and had attained finality. The subsequent decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal or by the Hon ble Supreme Court cannot make the order invalid and non-operational. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly given his findings that the appellants cannot take the protection of a decision in another case, which was not filed by them. It has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
