Quasi-judicial refund orders cannot be reopened without statutory review power, and mistake-of-law refunds may fall outside excise limitation rules.

A quasi-judicial refund order cannot be reopened by the same Assistant Collector unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication confers review power; absent such authority, a notice seeking recovery of the refunded amount is without jurisdiction. The excise recovery rules were also inapplicable on their terms because the amount related to money paid under mistake of law, not a short levy or an erroneous refund covered by the rules. In that setting, the ordinary three-year limitation applied instead of the one-year period under the refund rule, and the claim was treated as timely. Proceedings proposed in excess of jurisdiction could be restrained by writ.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to reopen and seek recovery of a refund already granted by him; (ii) whether the recovery demand was sustainable under Rule 10 or barred by limitation, and whether the refund claim was governed by Rule 11 or the general law of limitation.

Issue (i): whether the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to reopen and seek recovery of a refund already granted by him.

Analysis: The refund order was made after consideration of the assessee's claim and was a quasi-judicial order. No express or implied power of review was conferred on the Assistant Collector under the Act or the Rules. In the absence of such power, the same authority could not issue a notice to unsettle its own concluded order. The Act contained other supervisory remedies at higher levels, but not a power in the Assistant Collector to review his own refund order.

Conclusion: The attempt to reopen the refund was without jurisdiction and was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the recovery demand was sustainable under Rule 10 or barred by limitation, and whether the refund claim was governed by Rule 11 or the general law of limitation.

Analysis: Rule 10 applied only where duty had been short-levied or erroneously refunded; the amount paid on packing materials was not excise duty on goods manufactured and the refund granted earlier was not an erroneous refund within that rule. The claim concerned money paid under mistake of law and therefore fell outside Rule 11 and the connected one-year limitation. The applicable period was the ordinary three-year limitation, and the claim was made within that period from the date when the legal position became clear. The writ petition was maintainable because prohibition could issue where proceedings were proposed in excess of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Rule 10 and Rule 11 did not bar the assessee's claim, and the refund claim was within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The show-cause notice could not be proceeded with, the refund already granted could not be recalled by the same authority, and the assessee was entitled to protection from further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial authority cannot review or reopen its own concluded order unless such power is expressly or by necessary implication conferred by statute, and a claim for return of money paid under mistake of law is not governed by the excise rules dealing with short levy or erroneous refund when those rules are inapplicable on their terms.

---