Judgment :- The petitioners are a Co-operative Sugar Mills manufacturing sugar, which is excisable as Tariff 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Notification 108 of 1978 issued under the Central Excise Rules grants certain rebates in respect of free sale sugar and levy sugar, by way of production incentive, during the incentive period from 1-5-1978 to 15-8-1978. The petitioners filed their application for incentive rebate in terms of the said notification by their letter dated 6-7-1978 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise (first respondent). The first respondent by his letter dated 8-12-1978 informed the petitioners that the rate of rebate was only Rs. 53.55 per quintal and not Rs. 54/- per quintal, on a quantity of 14, 247.100 quintals and at the rate of Rs. 9.60 per quintal on the quantity of 26, 458.900 quintals. The petitioners were accordingly directed to revise the claim. The petitioners submitted a revised claim on 16-12-1978. The total amount of revised claim by the petitioners was Rs. 10, 16, 937.60. The first respondent granted rebate only to the tune of Rs. 4, 31, 618.75, in and by his order dated 25-11-1980. The reason for rejecting the balance of the claim was that the quantity of Rs. 18, 704.50 quintals of sugars had been exported under bond and that quantity was not entitled to the grant of rebate. The petitioners approached the Assistant Collector (second respondent) persue their claim for the balance of the amount. According to the Revenue, this representation to the second respondent was in fact characterised as an appeal in all the correspondence. But the petitioners would have it that it was only a representation. The petitioners sent repeated reminders to the second respondent and cited cases of other Sugar Mills. By an order dated 21-5-1982 the second respondent informed the petitioners that the second respondent was not the proper authority to hear an appeal against the order of the first respondent and accordingly directed the petitioners to prefer an appeal to the appropriate authority namely the Appellate Collector of Central Excise. The petitioners thereupon filed an appeal to the third respondent against the order of the second respondent dated 21-4-1982. That appeal was dismissed as time-barred, treating the appeal as one against the order of the first respondent dated 25-1-1980. A further appeal to the Tribunal was also dismissed. The petitioners thereupon filed an appeal to the third respondent against the order of the second respondent dated 21-4-1982. That appeal was dismissed as time-barred, treating the appeal as one against the order of the first respondent dated 25-1-1980. A further appeal to the Tribunal was also dismissed. The petitioners have therefore come up with this writ petition to call for the records of the respondents 1 to 3 in their proceedings dated 25-1-1980, 21-4-1982 and 7-9-1982 respectively and to quash the order of the first respondent dated 25-1-1980 and for a direction to the second respondent to grant rebate as per the revised claim of the petitioners contained in their letter dated 16-12-1978. 2.A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents wherein they have given the reasons as to why the rebate was restricted to the sum of Rs. 4, 31, 618.75 and how the petitioners had misconceived their remedies by filing appeals to certain authorities not competent to hear appeals and invited unnecessary troubles for themselves. It is contended that the order of the Superintendent dated 25-1-80 was in accordance with law and the order contended good and sufficient reasons for restricting the rebate claim and if aggrieved the petitioners ought to have filed an appeal to the correct Appellate Authorities, listed of pursuing the matter with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. 3.The correctness of the order of the Superintendent dated 25-1-1980 is not canvassed before me by the petitioners. I may however advert to the reasons given in the counter-affidavit for supporting the said order. The notification, under which rebate was claimed had clarified in paragraph 5 that sugar which was cleared for export would be entitled for the grant of rebate, only to the extent notified under the Excise Production Rebate Scheme and not to full rebate on export. It is precisely for this reason that the Superintendent disallowed the rebate on the quantity exported under the excess production scheme because that would be otherwise eligible for full export rebate as per the orders then in force. The counter-affidavit also explains the reason for adopting rebate at the lower rate of Rs. 53.55 per quintal. 4.The thrust of the argument that Mr. Nandakumar for the petitioners is that the representation dated 7-2-1980 addressed to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (second respondent) should have been treated as an originally claimed for refund. The counter-affidavit also explains the reason for adopting rebate at the lower rate of Rs. 53.55 per quintal. 4.The thrust of the argument that Mr. Nandakumar for the petitioners is that the representation dated 7-2-1980 addressed to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (second respondent) should have been treated as an originally claimed for refund. According to the learned Counsel it was because the second respondent treated the said representation as an appeal and rejected the same on 21-4-1982 as not maintainable that the subsequent orders of the appellate authorities were passed adopting the same argument of the second respondent. Therefore the main attack is against the order dated 21-4-1982. Mr. A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy for respondents points out that the said representation dated 7-2-1980 predominantly says in the subject-matter that it was an appeal against the order of the first respondent. In the body of the letter there is this following sentence :- "We therefore request you that our appeal may be considered favourably on the following grounds." * Therefore the order of the second respondent dated 21-4-1982 which itself superscribes the subject-matter as an appeal against the order of the Superintendent, cannot be found fault with. The order is as follows :- 'This is to inform you that the Assistant Collector is not the proper officer to hear the appeal against the order of the Superintendent. You are requested to prefer an appeal with the Appellate Collector, Madras.' What is more the petitioner abided by the direction of the second respondent as contained in his letter dated 21-4-1982 and preferred an appeal on 30-6-1982 to the third respondent. That appeal was against the order of the second respondent dated 21-4-1982. The third respondent held that the letter dated 21-4-1982 of the second respondent cannot be treated as an order and therefore no appeal will lie. The substance of the appeal petition dated 30-6-1982 showed that the petitioners were really challenging the order of the first respondent dated 25-1-1980. It is pointed out that against the order dated 25-1-1980, the petitioners did not file an appeal in time as per Sec. 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 5.I have carefully perused the orders of the authorities challenged in this writ petition. I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been vigilant in taking a proper legal advice at the appropriate time in seeking relief. 5.I have carefully perused the orders of the authorities challenged in this writ petition. I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been vigilant in taking a proper legal advice at the appropriate time in seeking relief. It does not behove of a Co-operative Sugar Mill having such high production capacity and claiming to be a public limited company to say that they were ignorant of the law in not approaching the appropriate authorities at the proper time. I am satisfied from a perusal of the alleged representation dated 7-2-1980 addressed to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise that the said representation was in effect an appeal against the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise. The representation in more than one place, states that it was an appeal against the order of the Superintendent, Central Excise. Therefore it is impossible to find fault with the letter of the second respondent dated 21-4-1982 directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Collector. This letter dated 21-4-1982 cannot be considered an order entitling the petitioner to file an appeal to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, the third respondent. Consequently the order of the third respondent dated 7-9-1982 cannot also be found fault with and considering the said appeal as one against the Superintendent of Central Excise dated 25-1-1980, certainly the appeal before the third respondent was barred by limitation. Therefore the petitioners have to blame themselves for the unenviable position in which they have placed themselves. 6.InTriveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd.v. Union of India and Others 1983 (12) ELT 711 ] has been cited for the proposition that the proper officer is under a statutory obligation to give effect to the appellate order or revisional order, as the case may be and to refund the amount to the person entitled to it in consequence of such order. I do not think that this decision helps the petitioner in anyway. I do not think that this decision helps the petitioner in anyway. It is not as if there is an order entitling the petitioner to get refund or rebate of any particular amount.Swadeshi Polytex Ltd.v. CCE 1990 AIR(SC) 301, 1990 CrLR(SC) 116, 1990 (28) ECR 289, 1989 (44) ELT 794 , 1989 (S) JT 347, 1989 (2) Scale 1208 , 1990 (2) SCC 358 , 1989 (S2) SCR 262, 1990 CRLR 116, 1990 (25) ECC 152, 1990 SCC(Tax) 292] is cited for interpreting the notification granting rebate in a manner which should benefit the assessee. The petitioner has not shown before me as to how the notification has been misinterpreted or that the authorities are trying to avoid the grant of rebate to the petitioner. The Full Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court inA'bad Cotton Mfg. Co.v. Union of India 1977 AIR(Gujarat) 113) only relates to the question of alternative remedy and inasmuch as I have not dismissed the writ petition the ground of alternative remedy it is not necessary to refer to the ratio of the said judgment. The decision inToshiba Anand Lamis Ltd., Cochinv. The Superintendent of Central Excise and Others[1979 (4)E.L.T.(J 602)] does not in any way support the case of the petitioners but on the other hand it says that Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, does not confer any power on the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing an appeal.6A.I have already pointed out that the counter-affidavit explains as to why the Superintendent of Central Excise restricted the claim to Rs. 4, 31, 618.75. Though the petitioner did not challenge the reasons given in the counter-affidavit, I am satisfied that the reasons given in the counter-affidavit in support of the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise are valid and correct. Consequently no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition and it is dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs.