9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)]. - In terms of Notification No. 108 of 1978 CE dated 28-4-1978 the appellants M/s. Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. had claimed rebate of Rs. 5,76,963.00 in respect of excess sugar produced by them. Under letters dated 28-10-1978 and 3-12-1978 the Superintendent had sanctioned rebate of Rs. 3,64,346.39 paise and rejected the claim in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransfer, is now before us as a deemed appeal. 2. We have heard Shri K.P. Joshi, Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.C. Sachar, JDR for the Department. 3. Shri Joshi submitted that no show cause notice had been issued to the appellants before the Superintendent passed his order dated 18-4-1979 and no hearing had been granted and for that reason itself the order was bad in law. When it was po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of notice and representation following the same is to be ignored in view of the abandonment of the plea based on the same (as noted earlier) the jurisdiction to pass an order was with the Assistant Collector only and the Superintendent had no jurisdiction to pass the order directing recovery of the alleged wrong refund. Shri Joshi further contended that the Superintendent was not entitled in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have been to the extent of basic duty only and therefore an excess rebate of Rs. 88,524.42 was allowed to you ..... . Thus under this order dated 18-4-1979 the Superintendent purported to review his earlier orders under letters dated 28-10-1978 and 3-12-1978. It is well settled law that no quasi judicial authority has a right to review its earlier order unless such a right to review has been e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was the Assistant Collector and not the Superintendent. Since the order dated 18-4-1979 was passed by the Superintendent and not the Assistant Collector it follows that the Superintendent acted in excess of his jurisdiction in passing the said order. 7. For both these reasons we hold that the order of the Superintendent of 18-4-1979 was not legal. Accordingly we allow this appeal and set aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
