- (1.)PETITIONER has filed this petition claiming refund of the amount on admitted facts. The entitlement of the petitioner was not in dispute. On being noticed, the respondents appeared. The respondents through their Counsel filed an affidavit undertaking to refund the amount to the petitioner as per order of the CEGAT dated 21-5-1997, on or before 21-12-2001. It is not in dispute that the amount has now been paid to the petitioner as per the undertaking given by the respondent.
(2.)THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Tribunal was passed of 21-5-1997. It was obligatory on the part of the respondents to refund amount as per the order of the Tribunal. The petitioner was required to move this Court for implementation of the order of the Tribunal. Had this amount been paid well within the reasonable period, he would not have been required to approach this Court. He, therefore, prayed for grant of interest as consequential relief for delayed payment of admitted amount of refund to which petitioner was entitled in law.
(3.)PER contra, learned Counsel for the respondents raised a solitary contention that the writ petition itself being not maintainable, no such relief as prayed for can be granted. No mandamus can be issued to grant relief of refund. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court, one in the case of (Suganmal v. State of M. P.), A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 1740 and another in the case of (Union of India v. Orient Enterprises), reported in 1998 (99) E. L. T. 193 and third in the case of (Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Union of India), reported in 2001 (132) E. L. T. 14 (S. C. ).