JUDGMENT
P.S. Patankar, J.
1. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of products based on Silicon Oil which is used by various industries in their industrial process for surface-active properties. The Petitioners are having 3 units, viz. Bombay, Khopoli and Kharsundi. The Petitioners filed classification list in respect of their products/goods claiming that they were classifiable under Tariff Item 15AA of the schedule to Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and also claimed exemption from the whole of excise duty under Notification No. 101/66-C.E., dated 17-6-[1966]. The Assistant Collector of Customs accepted the Petitioners’ claim partly for classification under Tariff Item 15AA with effect from the specified dates and also extended benefit of the said Notification. The Department filed a review application to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) for review of the said order and order came to be reviewed on 15-2-1988. The Petitioners preferred an appeal before CEGAT. CEGAT partly allowed the appeal filed by the Petitioners holding that the products are classifiable under Tariff Item 15AA and Respondent No. 3 was directed to extend the benefit of the said Notification dated 17-6-1966 to the Petitioners’ products with certain conditions. The Respondents did not comply with the said order which required the Petitioners to file the Writ Petition No. 893 of 1933 in this Court. On 30th September, 1991, a statement came to be made on behalf of the Respondents that they would comply with the said order of Tribunal within four weeks. In view of this, Petitioners, withdrew the said petition. Further, by order dated 24-6-1991 Respondent No. 3 allowed the benefit of the said Notification to the Petitioners in respect of certain items which were left out earlier and the said exemption Notification was also made applicable. According to the Petitioners it was made applicable from wrong date and this deprived the Petitioners of getting back the excise duty to a large extent.
2. Therefore, Petitioners filed this Writ Petition on 26-7-1991, and at the admission stage Respondents were directed to refund the amount to the Petitioners as per order dated 24/26-6-1991 within 8 weeks. However, on 20-9-1991 Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 came into force which required the Petitioners to prove that they have not passed on the burden to the consumers. The Petitioners, therefore, approached the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in view the order dated 24/26-6-1991 passed by the Assistant Commissioner for considering the claim of the Petitioner for refund. In view of introduction of Section 11B, on 25-5-1992 the Collector of Central Excise passed the order whereby the Petitioners’ claim regarding the effective dates was upheld. It was ordered that effective dates for benefit of exemption, under Notification dated 17-6-1966, will be dates of payment of duty under protest. It was also ordered that the Assistant Commissioner should re-examine the applicability of the said Notification to the product Katarang ERV and Katarang MH 150. Order for consequential reliefs under provisions of Section 11B was also granted. The Department preferred an appeal against the said order dated 15-5-1992 before CEGAT on 26-6-1992. But no stay was granted to the order dated 25-5-1992.
3. The Petitioners after receipt of the order dated 25-5-1992 submitted a letter dated 18-6-1992 as a proof that the Petitioners have not recovered the Central Excise duty at the rate of 40% advance from the customers or in other words to show that it has not passed on the burden to the consumers. However, the Department has failed to act on the order dated 25-5-1992, though no stay was granted by CEGAT.
4. However, in the present Petition we are only concerned with the implementation of the order dated 24-6-1991 passed by Respondent No. 3 which is not in challenge before any authority. The question would be whether the Petitioners are entitled to get refund as ordered by the Department by the said order. In our view, the Petitioners are entitled to get refund subject to the limitations provided under amended Section 11B of the Act. Further, whether they are entitled to get the said amount if at the all granted by Respondent No. 3 with interest.
5. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the order passed on 2-9-1991 by this court in this writ petition directing the Respondents to grant refund of amount to the Petitioners as per order dated 24-6-1991 within 8 weeks, in our opinion the Petitioners are entitled to get interest at least from the said date at the rate of 12% p.a. till date of payment.
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Panvel, Respondent No. 3 is directed to hear the Petitioners and to decide their claim for refund after taking into consideration provisions of Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and further considering the order of Collector of Customs of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 25-5-1992.
The Respondent No. 3 is further directed to decide and dispose of the said claim within a period of 3 months form this order.
6. Petition disposed of accordingly. No costs. Certified copy expedited.