TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of adjustment in duty payable by the assessee himself on 17-5-1994. 4.It is seen from the proceedings, dated 20-11-1995 that the petitioner made a claim for the refund of a sum of Rs. 2,63,495/- towards central excise duty paid on sodium hypochlorite under Chapter Heading No. 28 for the period from 13-9-1993 to 30-11-1993 consequent to final approval of classification list in respect of sodium hypochlorite solution by the Assistant Commissioner. It is also noticed that prior to that, the petitioner had captively consumed caustic soda lye in the manufacture of sodium hypochlorite solution and availed facility under the Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-3-1986, which attracted the levy of Central Excise duty. After the approval of classi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 2,63,495/- has been sustained and settled by adjustment by proceedings dated 20-11-1995. On 14-5-1996, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the refund sanctioning Rs. 2,63,495/- should not be recovered from them under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and credited into the consumer welfare fund in terms of Section 12C of the said Act. 7.The petitioner raised objections contending that the respondent has no authority to issue a show cause notice nor could review the matter, which has reached finality nor the respondent has the authority to revise his own order. Overruling the same, the impugned order has been passed holding that the earlier refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld by Shivraj Patil, J. (as he then was) in the case of India Pistons Limited v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Madras-II [2000 (117) E.L.T. 545 (Mad.)] wherein it has been held as follows : "Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged (1) Respondent No. 1, having granted permission by his order dated 5-9-1986 after considering all aspects, was not justified in passing the impugned order; further, Respondent No. 1 having passed the order dated 5-9-1986 was quasi judicial authority, could not have review his own order, as is done under the impugned order; in the absence of power of review conferred on the authority by the statute, the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 1 is patently illegal and one passed without jurisdiction. In s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this submission, promptly stated that when the impugned order is one passed without jurisdiction on the face of it and when the writ petition is pending for the last nine years in this Court, this Court, may not be at this stage, drive the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. It is well settled in law that the power of review, unless conferred by the statute expressly, it cannot be assumed or exercised by the authorities. In this case, in the absence of any specific provision shown to me that Respondent No. 1 had the power of reviewing his own order, the impugned order cannot be sustained, inasmuch as the impugned order is one passed without jurisdiction, in the absence of any power given to Respondent No. 1 by the statute. This ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
