1986 (8) TMI 233 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim of rebate on excess sugar production, jurisdiction of Superintendent to review orders, compliance with Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. claiming a rebate for excess sugar production under a specific notification. The Superintendent initially sanctioned a partial rebate and rejected the remaining claim. Subsequently, the Superintendent reviewed the case and found an excess rebate granted, demanding a recovery from the appellants. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Appellate Collector, leading to a revision petition before the Government, now transferred as a deemed appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that no show cause notice was issued before the Superintendent's order, questioning its legality. However, this argument was not pursued further. The advocate also highlighted Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, claiming that proper procedures were not followed in recovering the alleged wrong refund, emphasizing the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector in such matters.

The appellant's advocate contended that the Superintendent exceeded his authority by reviewing his own order and directing recovery, which was not permissible under the law. On the other hand, the Department's representative argued that the plea regarding the lack of notice under Rule 10 was waived during the previous proceedings. Additionally, it was argued that the Superintendent had the inherent power to rectify mistakes in his earlier order.

The Tribunal analyzed the Superintendent's order dated 18-4-1979, where he reviewed his previous decisions on the rebate. The Tribunal concluded that the Superintendent did not have the legal right to review his earlier order without statutory authorization. It was established that the Superintendent acted beyond his jurisdiction in passing the order, as the authority competent for such adjudication under Rule 10 was the Assistant Collector, not the Superintendent. Consequently, the Tribunal held the Superintendent's order as illegal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the lower authorities.