https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83628 The Tribunal upheld the order based on a corrigendum curing a show cause notice without jurisdiction, invoking the extended period for duty demand under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants disputed the validity of the corrigendum issued by an Additional Collector, arguing it did not cure the initial invalidity of the notice. They also contested the findings on suppression of value and the requirement for filing a classification list of rejected pipes. The Tribunal found in favor of the Department, holding that the corrigendum rectified errors and complied with principles of natural justice. en-us Wed, 12 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:31:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83628 The Tribunal upheld the order based on a corrigendum curing a show cause notice without jurisdiction, invoking the extended period for duty demand under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants disputed the validity of the corrigendum issued by an Additional Collector, arguing it did not cure the initial invalidity of the notice. They also contested the findings on suppression of value and the requirement for filing a classification list of rejected pipes. The Tribunal found in favor of the Department, holding that the corrigendum rectified errors and complied with principles of natural justice. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83628