https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97955 The Tribunal clarified that the phrase "that order" in its earlier reasoning referred to the second Collector's order, not the first. The first order had not been communicated and was not the subject of appeal, so it could not have formed part of the operative setting aside. The later order was treated as the only order capable of being dealt with under Section 129D, and the reference was construed by ordinary language and contextual reading to match that order. The clarification turned entirely on the internal reference in the earlier order and the procedural status of the two Collector's orders. en-us Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:48:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97955 The Tribunal clarified that the phrase "that order" in its earlier reasoning referred to the second Collector's order, not the first. The first order had not been communicated and was not the subject of appeal, so it could not have formed part of the operative setting aside. The later order was treated as the only order capable of being dealt with under Section 129D, and the reference was construed by ordinary language and contextual reading to match that order. The clarification turned entirely on the internal reference in the earlier order and the procedural status of the two Collector's orders. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97955