The facts and circumstances of the appellants case and that of Nevichem Industries and distinguishable.
Collector after reaching a findings on the classification of the impugned product.
A dispute arose as it was held to be classifiable under Tariff Entry No.
An application therefor was filed on 19.03.1985.
Appellant thereafter filed several representations dated 21.09.1989 and 11.07.1991 for refund of the said amount.
Indisputably, the said order attained finality.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed, opining In view of the above, learned Standing Counsel Shri Malkan for the respondents was very much right in submitting that the respondents were number required to file any reply to such type of petition.
As despite the said representations, the amount in question was number refunded, a numberice of hearing was given to it on 06.08.1991.
It was classified as such.
The said application was rejected.
The question which arises for companysideration is as to whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the excess amount of the excise duty paid by it.
68 of the erstwhile schedule to the Central Excise and Salts Act, 1944.
It deposited the excise duty under protest.
68 by an order dated 11.11.1985.
It filed a writ petition.
A casual reference has been made to the said CEGAT order by the Asstt.
Arising out of S.L.P Civil No.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst before the Collector of Central Excise Appeals .
By an order dated 07.09.1989, the said appeal was allowed stating The refund arising due to this order cannot be rejected on the plea that the department has preferred an appeal against the order of CEGAT in the case of Nevichem Synthetic Industries on the basis of which the above order was passed.
Collector has number based his companyclusion upon the ratio of the said CEGAT judgment.
In view of the matter the appeal filed by the department against the CEGTAT order will have numbereffect on the appellants even if it is decided in favour of the department.
It is seen that the Asstt.
Appellant is a manufacturer of Adhesive falling under Tariff Item No.
2985/2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
