9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the Bangalore unit the appellant was not given the benefit of Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 under the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, dated 29-11-1988 on the ground that the appellant admittedly did not have the SSI certificate in terms of the aforesaid Notification. The learned counsel with reference to proviso to Para 4 of the Notification contended that if the clearances had not exceeded Rs. 7.5 lakhs in the preceding financial year or not likely to exceed that sum in the current year the unit would become entitled to the benefit of the said Notification and the production of SSI certificate is dispensed with by the Notification itself under Para 4, proviso (a) and in this view assailed the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the period in question the Superintendent of Central Excises passed an order en 29-12-1987 directing the appellants to pay Rs. 96,945.46 after verification of the appellants invoices and also considering the applicability of Notification 175/86, cited supra, in favour of the appellants. Shri Raghavan contended that this order of the Superintendent is an order in exercise of the quasi-judicial power and, therefore, the Collector can only review the order under Section 35E of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 and cannot independently purport to exercise jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act for the same period by issue of a show cause notice resulting in the impugned order. The Bench after hearing the learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CEA, to apply to the Collector (Appeals) for determination of the points specified by the Collector. This was the course sanctioned by law and had not been followed. The amended Section 11-A of the CEA did not authorise the Collector to reopen, suo motu or otherwise, orders or decisions made or taken by officers subordinate to him. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. On 27th December, 1990 we had pronounced our order allowing the appeal, on the conclusion of the hearing. This order sets out our reasons. (Paras 4, 6 and 7)." We note that when the order of the authority suffers from the inherent lack of jurisdiction and is ab initio void, non est in the eye of law and consequently a nullity, the same would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
