https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84999 After remand, pending central excise proceedings had to continue in accordance with the amended statutory allocation of adjudicatory authority, so the jurisdictional objection failed and the proceedings remained valid. On valuation of textured yarn, duty under the notification was confined to the excess over duty-paid base yarn; because there was no proof that the base yarn was non-duty-paid, duty could not be demanded on that base yarn. The duty demand was therefore restricted to the differential amount, with reassessment directed on the footing that the base yarn was duty paid. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:58:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84999 After remand, pending central excise proceedings had to continue in accordance with the amended statutory allocation of adjudicatory authority, so the jurisdictional objection failed and the proceedings remained valid. On valuation of textured yarn, duty under the notification was confined to the excess over duty-paid base yarn; because there was no proof that the base yarn was non-duty-paid, duty could not be demanded on that base yarn. The duty demand was therefore restricted to the differential amount, with reassessment directed on the footing that the base yarn was duty paid. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84999