(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the question involved in the instant writ petition has already been decided by this Court in a bunch of writ petition, leading writ petition No. 11791 (M/B) of 2010 (Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Versus Union of India and others), whereby this Court, vide order dated 18.5.2012, while allowing the bunch of writ petitions, quashed the Circular dated 28.10.2009 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Circular dated 3.10.2009 issued by the Central Excise, U.P., Lucknow and demand notice dated 24/27.9.2010 issued by the Joint Commissioner, Customs Central Excise and Service Tax. It was also provided that some of the petitioners deposited the entire duty and interest under protest, it should be returned to them, within a maximum period of four weeks, from the receipt of a certified copy of the order.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of argument of the said bunch of writ petitions, due to some confusion, learned Counsel for the parties has wrongly mentioned that in the present writ petition, question involved is different from the bunch of writ petitions and as such, while deciding the said bunch of writ petitions, this Court directed to delink the instant writ petition from the said bunch of writ petition and as such, he has preferred an application for modify the judgment and order dated 18.5.2012 (C.M.Application No. 7027 of 2013).