TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 28-4-1978, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. It manufactures sugar at its factory situated at Harige, Shimoga Taluk and District. A Notification was issued by the Central Government on 28-4-1978 in exercise of its power under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short "the Rules"). The said notification conferred exemption on the sugar produced by any factory during the period commencing from 1st May, 1978 and ending with 30th day of September, 1978 provided the production of sugar exceeded the production during the corresponding period of the preceding three years. Another notification was published on 14-8-1978, modified as having been issued on 15- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons were issued under Rule 8(1) of the Rules. According to the Chief Accounts Officer what was payable to the petitioner was only a sum of Rs. 5,54,180.46, as rebate. 4. Once again the petitioner wrote to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Davanagere on 5-4-1979 pressing the claim for payment of the total rebate amount of Rs. 10,22,896.32 and for payment of the balance due to the petitioner. Once more a letter was addressed by the petitioner on 30-5-1979 to the same authority claiming the difference rebate amount of Rs. 1,78,944.50 without prejudice to the claim made earlier for the reason there was some wrong calculation even adopting the basis of calculation made by the Department. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Dava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... angalore was not an order passed by an adjudicating authority and that the petitioner was not invested with any right of appeal in terms of Section 35 of the Act. It also held that even assuming that an appeal lay to the Tribunal, it was barred by limitation and rejected the revision petition. 5. On 27-2-1987 the petitioner approached the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Davanagere for an order of adjudication regarding the claim for rebate particularly in view of the finding of the appellate authority that the Chief Accounts Officer was not competent to pass an adjudicatory order on the matter in dispute. However, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Davanagere communicated his decision to the petitioner by a letter dated 9-3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to note that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, who passed an order dated 9-3-1987 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 27-2-1987 did not notice the observation made by the Tribunal that the Chief Accounts Officer of the Central Excise Department did not have the competence to pass an adjudicatory order by virtue of the fact that the Chief Accounts Officer is not an executive authority at all. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise has failed to notice an important aspect in this case that the petitioner did not derive the right of appeal against the order communicated by the Chief Accounts Officer to the petitioner rejecting the claim for payment of balance of rebate amount only because the Chief Accounts Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
