( 1. ) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing a notice by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Raipur, on 21st October, 1960 to the petitioner asking it to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed for contravention of Rules 9 (1) and 53 (a) read with Rule 226 (ii) of the Central Excise Rules, and for quashing an order made by the said authority on 31st March, 1961 holding the petitioner guilty of offences punishable under Rules 9 (2) and 226 (ii) and imposing on it a penalty of Rs. 50/- The Superintendent also made an order for the recovery of duty at the appropriate rate from the petitioner on 469. 20 maunds of linseed oil which he found the petitioner mill had removed without payment of duty thereon.

( 2. ) THIS petition must be dismissed. The petitioner had admittedly filed an appeal against the order of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Raipur, to the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, and that appeal was rejected by the Collector on 18th September, 1961. Thereupon the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. According to the applicant, the Collector rejected the appeal as the petitioner had failed to deposit the amount of excise duty payable by him under the order of the Superintendent, Central Excise, and the deposit of this amount was necessary before the appeal could be entertained; and that for the same reason the Government of India also did not entertain the revision petition preferred by the applicant.

( 3. ) THE petitioners appeal having been dismissed by the Collector, Central Excise, Nagpur, it must be held on the authority of a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. The East India Commercial Co. Ltd. , Calcutta and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 383 of 1961, decided on 30th April, 1962) that the order of the Superintendent, Central Excise merged in the order of the appellate authority, and that the order of the appellate authority also merged in the order of the Government of India rejecting the revision petition. The only effective order now is that of the Central Government or of the appellate authority. As above both these authorities are beyond our territorial jurisdiction, it is not open to us to issue a writ to the original authority, namely the Superintendent, Central Excise, Raipur. In the Supreme Court case referred to above, an order imposing on the East India Commercial Co. Ltd, Calcutta and others, a penalty under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, had been made by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The Company appealed to the Central Board of Revenue against the order of the Collector which was dismissed. While considering the question whether the order of the appellate authority even where the appellate authority merely dismissed the appeal without any modification of the order of the original authority.

"it is obvious that when an appeal is made, the appellate authority can do one of three things, namely, (i) it may reverse the order, and (iii) it may merely dismiss the appeal and thus confirm the order without any modification. It is not disputed that in the first two cases where the order of the original authority is either reversed or modified it is the order of the appellate authority which is the operative order and if the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ to the original authority. The question, therefore, is whether there is any difference between those two cases and the third case where the Appellate Authority dismisses the appeal and thus confirms the order of the original authority. It seems to us that on principle it is difficult to draw distinction between the first two kind of orders passed by the appellate authority and the third kind of order passed by it. In all these three cases after the appellate authority has disposed of the appeal, the operative order is the order