Santosh Hegde, J. - (1.) In CA 5341/1996 a dispute had arisen between the applicant herein and Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad in regard to the rate of octroi that could be charged on rectified spirit imported into the Municipal limits by the applicant-appellant for its distillery to manufacture potable-alcohol. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the said appeal held that the rectified spirit fell under residuary Entry 86 of Clause IX of the Schedule attracting octroi duty at 2% and not at the rate at which it was being levied and collected from the applicant-appellant. In the said appeal the Court gave the following direction :"Given the facts and reason stated above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order and hold that the appellant was liable to pay octroi duty at 2% on the rectified spirit imported. The respondent (sic) is entitled to recover the difference of octroi duty. No costs."
(2.) The use of the word respondent therein is a typographical error and there is dispute that the entitlement to recover the differential duty is that of the applicant-appellant herein.
(3.) In the present application seeking clarification the applicant has complained that in spite of the aforesaid directions the respondent-Municipality is not repaying the excess amount collected by it as directed by this Court. Therefore, it has sought for the following reliefs: (a) clarify the order dated 17-4-2002 and direct the Respondent to refund the excess octroi of Rs. 3,51,94,471/- along with interest @ 12%; and/or (b) alternatively direct the Respondent to set off the above amount against Appellants future liabilities of Octroi; and (c) pass such other further order(s) which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. ;