TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (11) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....their application for incentive rebate in terms of the said notification by their letter dated 6-7-1978 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise (first respondent). The first respondent by his letter dated 8-12-1978 informed the petitioners that the rate of rebate was only Rs. 53.55 per quintal and not Rs. 54/- per quintal, on a quantity of 14,247.100 quintals and at the rate of Rs. 9.60 per quintal on the quantity of 26,458.900 quintals. The petitioners were accordingly directed to revise the claim. The petitioners submitted a revised claim on 16-12-1978. The total amount of revised claim by the petitioners was Rs. 10,16,937.60. The first respondent granted rebate only to the tune of Rs. 4,31,618.75, in and by his order dated 25-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent dated 25-1-1980 and for a direction to the second respondent to grant rebate as per the revised claim of the petitioners contained in their letter dated 16-12-1978. 2. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents wherein they have given the reasons as to why the rebate was restricted to the sum of Rs. 4,31,618.75 and how the petitioners had misconceived their remedies by filing appeals to certain authorities not competent to hear appeals and invited unnecessary troubles for themselves. It is contended that the order of the Superintendent dated 25-1-80 was in accordance with law and the order contended good and sufficient reasons for restricting the rebate claim and if aggrieved the petitioners ought to have filed an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the main attack is against the order dated 21-4-1982. Mr. A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy for respondents points out that the said representation dated 7-2-1980 predominantly says in the subject-matter that it was an appeal against the order of the first respondent. In the body of the letter there is this following sentence :- "We therefore request you that our appeal may be considered favourably on the following grounds." Therefore the order of the second respondent dated 21-4-1982 which itself superscribes the subject-matter as an appeal against the order of the Superintendent, cannot be found fault with. The order is as follows :- 'This is to inform you that the Assistant Collector is not the proper officer to hear the appeal again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that due to ignorance of law there was a delay in filing the appeal and the petitioners should be permitted to argue the appeal. The Tribunal however found that the order dated 7-9-1982 made by the third respondent was perfectly in accordance with law. 5. I have carefully perused the orders of the authorities challenged in this writ petition. I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been vigilant in taking a proper legal advice at the appropriate time in seeking relief. It does not behove of a Co-operative Sugar Mill having such high production capacity and claiming to be a public limited company to say that they were ignorant of the law in not approaching the appropriate authorities at the proper time. I am satisfied from a peru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is an order entitling the petitioner to get refund or rebate of any particular amount. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. CCE [1990 (2) SCC 358] is cited for interpreting the notification granting rebate in a manner which should benefit the assessee. The petitioner has not shown before me as to how the notification has been misinterpreted or that the authorities are trying to avoid the grant of rebate to the petitioner. The Full Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court in A'bad Cotton Mfg. Co. v. Union of India (AIR 1977 Gujarat 113) only relates to the question of alternative remedy and inasmuch as I have not dismissed the writ petition the ground of alternative remedy it is not necessary to refer to the ratio of the said judgment. The decision in ....