1986 (8) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri K.C. Sachar, JDR, for the Respondents. [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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts preferred a revision petition to the Government which, on transfer, 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 grante....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Superintendent was bad in law. He contended that even if the question 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. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the amount of rebate allowed on free sale sugar Item No. II (i) and (ii) should 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....