Assessable value and limitation directions were properly followed, so no irregularity in the subsequent orders was shown.

The dispute concerned whether the adjudicating authority committed any irregularity by giving effect to an earlier common order that had already decided the includibility of drawing and design cost in assessable value and had limited the demand to the normal limitation period on the basis that there was no suppression or misstatement. The subsequent orders were found to be consistent with those directions, and no separate infirmity in the impugned orders was established. The challenge therefore failed, and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned orders suffered from any irregularity when the adjudicating authority merely carried out the directions contained in the earlier order and confined the demand to the normal period of limitation.

Analysis: The earlier common order had already decided the substantive question of includibility of the drawing and design cost in the assessable value and had confined the demand to the normal period on the footing that there was no suppression or misstatement. The present proceedings showed that the lower authorities only acted in accordance with those directions. No independent infirmity in the impugned orders was established.

Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned orders failed and the appeals were dismissed.

---