https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82229 An allegedly illegal or jurisdictionally defective adjudication order cannot be treated as a nullity where the statute provides a specific appellate remedy to challenge it. On the facts described, the Assistant Collector retained jurisdiction because the notice and adjudication did not allege fraud, suppression or misstatement sufficient to trigger transfer of pending proceedings under the 1985 amendment. Any challenge to the original order had to be pursued through the prescribed statutory channel, not by reopening the same dispute through fresh proceedings on identical facts. In that setting, no referable question of law arose, and the reference application was correctly rejected. en-us Wed, 09 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:46:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82229 An allegedly illegal or jurisdictionally defective adjudication order cannot be treated as a nullity where the statute provides a specific appellate remedy to challenge it. On the facts described, the Assistant Collector retained jurisdiction because the notice and adjudication did not allege fraud, suppression or misstatement sufficient to trigger transfer of pending proceedings under the 1985 amendment. Any challenge to the original order had to be pursued through the prescribed statutory channel, not by reopening the same dispute through fresh proceedings on identical facts. In that setting, no referable question of law arose, and the reference application was correctly rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82229