Challenge to earlier refusal within limitation was required; later extension of import-use time was set aside.

An earlier refusal to extend time for utilisation of imported tubes under Notification No. 177/88 had not been challenged, and the later grant of further extension was therefore unsustainable. The plea of breach of natural justice failed because no material showed denial of hearing, and the rule allowing collateral challenge to a void order was held inapplicable. The principle applied was that even an allegedly illegal or invalid order must be challenged before the proper forum within limitation. The further extension granted by the appellate authority was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting further extension of time for utilisation of imported tubes under Notification No. 177/88 was sustainable after earlier rejection of extension had not been challenged.

Analysis: The request for extension had been declined earlier and that order was never appealed against. The plea that the earlier refusal was vitiated by breach of natural justice was not accepted, as no material was shown to establish denial of hearing, and the rule permitting collateral challenge to void orders was held inapplicable. Reliance was placed on the principle that even illegal or invalid orders must be challenged before the appropriate forum within the prescribed period of limitation.

Conclusion: The further extension granted by the appellate authority was held unsustainable and was set aside.

---