Voidable adjudication orders remain effective until set aside, so a subsisting dropped demand cannot be enforced against the assessee.

An adjudication order dropping a duty demand continues to operate until it is set aside in competent proceedings, even if it is later alleged to suffer from want of jurisdiction. A voidable order is not treated as non-existent merely because it may be invalid; it remains effective for its ostensible purpose while it subsists. On that basis, a duty demand and penalty founded on the unchallenged or subsisting order could not be enforced against the assessee, and the contrary enforcement order was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and penalty could be enforced against the assessee when the earlier adjudication order dropping the demand had not been set aside.

Analysis: The earlier adjudication order dated 29-1-98 had dropped the very demand in question and was later upheld in appeal. Even if that order was alleged to suffer from want of jurisdiction, it continued to exist and remain operative until set aside in appropriate proceedings. An order is not treated as non-existent merely because it may be voidable; it remains effective for its ostensible purpose unless it is quashed or otherwise upset in competent proceedings.

Conclusion: The demand could not be enforced against the assessee and the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A voidable order remains enforceable until it is set aside in competent legal proceedings, and a demand founded on such an order cannot be enforced while that order subsists.

---