ORDER B.P. Jeevan Reddy and Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.
1. The appellant herein is the purchaser and the fourth respondent is the manufacturer. The fourth respondent was the third petitioner in the High Court (having been transposed from the array of the respondents to the array of the petitioners). Certain excise duty was collected from the fourth respondent-manufacturer. On the ground that the duty was not exigible according to law as declared by the Bombay High Court in the case of another manufacturer, the first appellant herein filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court claiming refund of the said amount saying that since the levy of the said duty has been declared to be unsustainable in law and because the burden of the duty has been passed on to him, the duty must be refunded to him. The said application has been dismissed by the High Court against which the present appeals are filed. According to the decision in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India 1996 (9) Scale 457 the appropriate course for the appellant, if it is so advised, is to file a refund application under Section 11B according to law within sixty days from today provided the writ petition was filed within six months of the date of payment of duty by the first appellant. If such application is filed, it shall be dealt with according to law as declared in the said judgment.
2. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.