JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Man Structurals Ltd. which is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 has filed this writ petition with the averments that it is engaged in performing certain processes on materials viz, iron angles plates channels rounds etc. received from various Electricity Boards including U.P. State Electricity Board. The angles plates etc. are cut to requisite size and holes punched therein. After certain other mechanical processes as per the specifications they are polished and then supplied back to the concerned Electricity Board. According to the petitioner all these processes undertaken by it do not amount to 'manufacturing process' within the meaning of Central Excise and Salts Act 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1944') and therefore the Act of 1944 is not applicable and no excise duty is attracted. Initially the Excise Department did not accept the petitioner's contention but the tariff was amended and Item No. 68 was introduced from 1.3.1975 and the Department insisted for payment of excise duty by the petitioner which the petitioner paid under protest. This process continued till June 1980. A classification list was submitted by the petitioner under protest. The petitioner vide letter dated 23rd June, 1980 further stated that their activity is not manufacture and that they will pay duty under protest. The said classification list was effective from 19.6.1980. The petitioner by its letter dated 4.2.1984 addressed to the Supdt. Central Excise mentioned that it had been informed by the Inspector that the classification list was pending finalisation and therefore the petitioner submitted that its product was not excisable because the process was not a manufacturing process but the petitioner did not hear anything. The petitioner after coming to know of the judgment dated 26.6.1986 passed by C.E.G.A.T. in the case of M/s. R.S. Steel Works Ghaziabad who are also doing similar work as is being done by the petitioner filed an application on 10.2.1987 for refund of duty recovered by the respondents from the petitioner during 1.3.1975 to 31.12.1986. The petitioner after coming to know of the judgment dated 26.6.1986 passed by C.E.G.A.T. in the case of M/s. R.S. Steel Works Ghaziabad who are also doing similar work as is being done by the petitioner filed an application on 10.2.1987 for refund of duty recovered by the respondents from the petitioner during 1.3.1975 to 31.12.1986. The Assistant Collector by its order dated 23rd June 1987 held that the petitioner's products are clearly non-excisable as the activities undertaken by the petitioner were the same as those of R.S. Steel Works Ghaziabad and relying on the order of the C.E.G.A.T. dated 26.6.1986 and also its subsequent decision in M/s. Dodsal Private Limited held that the same did not constitute 'manufacturing' within the meaning of Act of 1944 and therefore no excise duty was leviable in respect of the same. Hence he allowed the petitioner's claim for refund of the duty paid during the period 23.6.1980 to 31.5.81 and 11.9.1986 to 31.12.1986 but rejected the petitioner's claim for refund of the amount paid during 1.3.1975 to 22.6.1980 and 1.6.1981 to 10.9.1986 on the ground that refund claimed for that period was beyond limitation and the petitioner had allegedly not complied with the relevant procedural requirements for the payment of duty under protest. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Asstt. Collector before the Collector (Appeals) so far as refund claim of the petitioner was rejected. The Collector (Appeals) decided the appeal by his order dated 30.9.1987 and further directed that the petitioner will be entitled to refund for the period 1.3.1975 to 22.6.1980 however disallowing the claim of the petitioner for the period 1.6.1981 to 10.9.86 holding that the amount for that period was not paid in accordance with Rule 233-B of the Central Excise and Salt Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The petitioner did not pay any excise duty after 23.6.1987 and also surrendered Central Excise licence on 24.6.1987 and also filed the classification list effective from 1.3.1987 which was duly approved by the Assistant Collector on 14.7.1987. It has further been asserted in the writ petition that the judgment of the C.E.G.A.T. in the case of R.S. Steel Works was also accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and it decided not to prefer any appeal against that order and passed the following order: "I am directed to enclose a representation Ref. It has further been asserted in the writ petition that the judgment of the C.E.G.A.T. in the case of R.S. Steel Works was also accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and it decided not to prefer any appeal against that order and passed the following order: "I am directed to enclose a representation Ref. No. IM/Central Excise/3/3 dated 14.3.87 from M/s. Man Structurals Ltd. and to say that C.E.G.A.T. Order No. 395/86.81 dated 26.6.1986 in the case of M/s. R.S. Steel Works Ghaziabad has been accepted by the Board. Refund claims filed by M/s Man Structurals Ltd. may be decided on merits". 2. The petitioner filed further appeal against the order dated 30.9.1987 to the extent the refund claimed by the petitioner had been disallowed. The petitioner also filed refund claims for the period January 1987 to 23.6.1987. 3. The Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice on 15.12.1987 which was received by the petitioner on 19.12.1987 stating that the process undertaken by the petitioner amounted to 'manufacture' and that order dated 23.6.1987 has been wrongly passed and the amount had been wrongly refunded to the petitioner and further as to why the said amount be not recovered back under section 11-A of the Act of 1944. The petitioner further received another show cause notice dated 30.12.1987 received by it on 1.1.1988 seeking to review the order dated 14.7.1987 by which the petitioner's classification list was approved. By order dated 17/18.12.87 certain information about production and clearances was demanded and by letter dated 6.1.88 it was further called upon to start paying duty @ 15% or to comply with Rule 9-B even before the decision of the show cause notice. It is against these show cause notices that the present writ petition had been filed on 13.1.1988. 4. Notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and it was also ordered that till further orders no proceedings should be taken in pursuance of the impugned show cause notices. A reply has been filed on 21.7.88 on behalf of the Department to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner on 13.9.1988. A reply has been filed on 21.7.88 on behalf of the Department to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner on 13.9.1988. During the course of arguments it was stated at the bar that the Department also filed an appeal after the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.6.1987 had been decided by order dated 30.9.1987 and further appeals of both the sides are pending before the C.E.G.A.T. The present writ petition had been filed against the order of show cause notice dated 15.12.87 30.12.87 and communications dated 17.12.1987 and 6.1.1988. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that once an appeal has been filed against a particular order and the same had been decided the earlier order merges into the appellate order and there is no question of any review of such an order. It has further been submitted that once an appeal has been filed and the same has been decided there is no question of reviewing or reopening the matter by the original authority. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (1) Shivaji Oil Mills V. Supdt. of Central Excise & another ( 1978 ELT 506 ) wherein a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the order of the original authority merges into the order of the appellate authority (2) Collector of Customs V. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. ( AIR 1963 SC 1124 ) (3) Telco Ltd. V. Collector of Central Excise Pune (1987(32) ELT 583) and (4) Orissa Industries Limited V. Union of India and others (1979 E.L.T. 457 ) have also taken the same view. 6. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a successor in office is not competent to review the orders of his predecessor on the ground of incorrect interpretation of provisions of law and in this connection has placed reliance on the following authorities : (5) Collector of Central Excise Bangalore V. Guest Keen Williams Ltd. (1985 (21) ELT 182) (6) Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. V. Assistant Collector of Central Excise Madras & Anr. ( 1981 ELT 565 ) ; wherein it has been observed that the Central Excise Act or the Rules do not confer any powers on the Central Excise Officers to review their own order because it is the settled law that there is no inherent power of review in an authority while acting judicially or quasi-judicially unless the power of review is conferred expressly or by necessary implications by the provisions of a statute. In this case it has also been held that the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even at the stage of show cause notice:- (7) Ajanta Iron and Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India and others (1986 (23) ELT 318) ; wherein Delhi High Court has held that once a classification list had been approved by one of the Assistant Collectors it becomes an approved list and cannot be reviewed by the same or any Assistant Collector. It has further been held that once the classification list has been approved it cannot be disapproved subsequently (8) Entremonde Polycoaters Pvt. Ltd. Nasik V. Collector of Central Excise Pune (1984 (16) ELT 389) ; wherein also it has been held that once the classification list is approved the Assistant Collector has no jurisdiction to review the approved classification list on its own because Rule 173-B (v) does not invest the proper officer of a power of review of an approved classification list either expressly or by necessary implication (9) In Re. andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. (1982 ELT 559 (G.O.I.) (10) Kuntesh Gupta Vs. Management ( 1987 (32) ELT 8 ) ; wherein the Supreme Court has also observed that 'it is now well established that the quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order unless power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction." 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed and has submitted that the petitioner had got an alternative remedy and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed and has submitted that the petitioner had got an alternative remedy and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed. He has also placed reliance on (11) Assistant Collector of Central Excise Chandan Nagar West Bengal V. Dunlop India Ltd. and others ( AIR 1985 SC 330 ) (12) Jaymes Products V. Collector of Central Excise (1988 (37) ELT 281) (13) Collector of C.E. V. Universal Radiators Ltd. (1988 (37) ELT 222) (14) Nuchem Plastics Ltd. V. Collector of Central Excise (1988 (38) ELT 96) . 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further cited (15) Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. Collector of Central Excise (1988 (36) ELT 316) (16) S.A.E. (India) Ltd. V. Collector of Central Excise (1988 (36) ELT 613) and (17) Collector of Central Excise Baroda V. Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. Baroda (1987 (28) ELT 352 ); wherein it has been held that processes of straightening cutting bending punching and galvanising steel angles plates channels and bars as per the specification of the supplier does not amount to manufacture within the definition given in Section 2(f) of the Act of 1944. 9. I have carefully gone through the material on record as well as various authorities cited at the bar. In my opinion it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case as according to me the impugned show cause notices are of no avail in view of the fact that both the parties have already filed appeals against the orders which is sought to be reviewed. The orders of the Assistant Collector dated 23.6.1987 has merged into the appellate order dated 30.9.87 and therefore the Assistant Collector himself cannot review earlier order which has merged in the appellate order. Against order dated 14.7.1987 of the Assistant Collector also appeal is pending before the C.E.G.A.T. Moreover the Assistant Collector has no power of review as has been held in a number of cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter is already before the C.E.G.A. Tribunal and therefore it will not be proper for this Court to go into the question as to whether the processes carried on by the petitioner amounts to 'manufacture' or not. The matter is already before the C.E.G.A. Tribunal and therefore it will not be proper for this Court to go into the question as to whether the processes carried on by the petitioner amounts to 'manufacture' or not. In view of what has been said above it is hereby ordered that the Department (respondents) will not proceed/take any steps against the petitioner company in pursuance of the impugned notices dated 15.12.1987 and 30.12.87 and communications dated 17.12.1987 and 6.1.1988. 10. The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.Petition disposed of. *******