The jurisdiction of the Collector under the Central Excise Act does not extend to revising final orders of the Appellate Authority.

1The petitioner is a Public Limited Company manufacturing paper and paper boards. Under R.173-B of the Central Excise Rules, every assessee under the Central Excise Act has to furnish a list showing the full description of all excisable goods produced or manufactured by it, all other goods produced or manufactured by it and intended to be removed from his factory and all excisable goods already deposited or likely to be deposited from time to time without payment of duty in its warehouse. When once the list is so published, the proper officer conducts the necessary enquiries and may approve the list with such modifications as are considered necessary by him. The classification so made, in respect of the excisable goods manufactured by the petitioner company, by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, was taken in appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, by the petitioner under S.35 of the Central Excise and Salt Act. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 19-2-1979 (Ext. P4) set aside the assessment orders in three cases and remanded them for adjudication by the Assistant Collector. When the matter went back, he passed a fresh order on 30-11-1979 (Ext. P5) fixing the classification of the various items of paper manufactured by the petitioner and the duty payable on the basis of such classification. Ext. P5 was also taken in appeal and the Appellate Collector of Central Excise passed an order dated 24-11-1980 (Ext. P6). As per Ext. P6 the Appellate Authority directed the assessing authority to re-examine the petitioner's case 'in the light of the result of the Chemical Examiner.' Under the assessment order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ext. P7 dated 9-2-1981, pursuant to the remand, the petitioner got substantial relief. It is also staled that the petitioner also obtained some refund of the amounts paid by it. The order, Ext. P7, was sought to be revised by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise under S.35 (A) (2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, as it then stood, and Ext. P8 notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation Ext. P9. After this, an order has been passed, Ext. P11. The petitioner challenges Ext. P11 dated 6-8-1982.

2S.35-A(2) at the relevant time reads thus:-"35 A. Revision by Board or Collector -
(1) xxx     xxx  xxx
(2) The Collector of Central Excise may, of his own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which any decision or order has . been passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder by a Central Excise Officer subordinate to him (not being a decision or order passed or appeal under S.35) for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness legality or propriety of such decision or order and may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit."
It is, therefore, clear that the Collector of Central Excise has got suo motu power of revision under this provision only in respect of orders passed by the Central Excise Officers subordinate to him. He has no jurisdiction to take suo motu action, in respect of a decision or order passed in appeal under S.35. The Appellate Authority who passed the remand order on 24-11-1980 as per Ext. P16, was not a Central Excise Officer subordinate to the Collector of Central Excise. We are told that the Appellate Collector of Central Excise who issued Ext. P6 is one of the Senior Collectors of Central Excise. The Collector of Central Excise could not therefore have taken action under S.35-A(2) to revise the order dated 24-11-1980, Ext. P6. In the Show Cause Notice issued by him, Ext. P8 also, he has not mentioned and rightly too, that he was proposing to revise the order of the Appellate Authority, Ext. P6. He only stated that he was. proposing to revise the order passed by the assessing authority after remand as per Ext. P7 dated 9-2-1981. This is clear from Ext. P8. If the Collector of Customs and Central Excise cannot take suo motu action in