TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erection of various manufactured items at different sites, and the amount was paid by the appellants pursuant to a demand by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Group XXIX, Madras-6 vide his letter dated 17-2-1977 in respect of goods cleared during the period 1-3-1975 to 31-1-1977. The appellants paid the amount demanded by the Superintendent under challan No. 280645, dated 4-3-1977 into the Reserve Bank of India, Madras and later on 1-4-1977 the appellants wrote a letter pointing out that the duty was paid under protest and on the basis of this protest they filed a claim for refund of differential duty paid on expenses incurred for erection at various sites as this would not form part of the assessable value and no duty was payable ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal. 3. The important question that falls for determination is as to whether the communication issued by the Superintendent referred to supra in pursuance of which admittedly the appellants paid the disputed duty amount is an administrative order or an appealable order passed in exercise of quasi-judicial authority. The learned Representative for the appellants submitted that the amount was not paid in pursuance of any order as conceived in law and the Superintendent has not exercised any quasi-judicial function in calling upon the appellants to pay the disputed amount and if a quasi-judicial authority were to pass an order in exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, it has got necessarily to comply with certain fundamental proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted duty. He urged that protest in payment of disputed duty must be either before or on the date of payment of the disputed amount and a protest letter lodged after 27 days of payment of the disputed amount cannot be construed to be protest within the meaning of the relevant rules. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the parties herein. In my opinion, the lower appellate authority has misdirected himself in holding that the letter of the Superintendent dated 17-2-1977 is an appealable order. An appealable order cannot be passed by a quasi-judicial authority without conforming to the basic legal requirements of giving a show cause notice to the aggrieved party unless otherwise waived as per law, and in the instant case Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The fact also remains that neither the Collector of Central Excise who in exercise of his power of review nor the Assistant Collector who filed an appeal before the lower appellate authority in terms of Section 35E, ever contended that the communication of the Superintendent referred to supra is an appealable order and was not appealed against and therefore reached a stage of finality disentitling the Assistant Collector to sanction any refund. The lower appellate authority would appear to have taken up the stand that the communication of the Superintendent is in the nature of an appealable order without putting either of the party on notice of this issue and suo motu taking up the stand or affording them an opportunity of being heard. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
