No inherent power of review: excess rebate recovery had to follow Rule 10 procedure before the proper authority.

A Superintendent could not revise earlier rebate sanction orders by directing recovery of alleged excess rebate, because a quasi-judicial authority has no inherent power to review its own order unless statute expressly confers it. The correction sought was substantive, not clerical, so the matter had to proceed under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules for recovery of wrongly granted refund. Under that procedure, notice and adjudication were to be taken before the Assistant Collector, not the Superintendent. The document states that the Superintendent acted without jurisdiction and the recovery order was illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Superintendent could review his earlier rebate orders and direct recovery of the alleged excess rebate, and whether such recovery could be made without recourse to the procedure prescribed under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The order directing recovery was treated as a review of the earlier sanction orders. A quasi-judicial authority has no power to review its own order unless such power is expressly conferred by statute, and no such review power was available to the Superintendent. The mistake sought to be corrected was substantive and not clerical. Recovery of a wrongly granted refund had to be taken under Rule 10, and the authority competent to adjudicate after notice under that rule was the Assistant Collector, not the Superintendent.

Conclusion: The Superintendent acted without jurisdiction in passing the recovery order, and the order was held to be illegal. The appeal was allowed and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

---