( 1 ). This is a review petition filed by Respondents 1 and 2 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18175 of 1993. By our order dated 26/11/1993, we granted special leave and, having heard the appeal, we allowed it and directed Respondents 1 and 2 to refund the monies recovered by them from the State Bank of Patiala upon certain bank guarantees.

( 2 ). The appellants had filed an earlier appeal in this court against a decision of CEGAT regarding the classification of toilet soap for the purposes of excise duty. Interim orders were passed in the appeal whereby stay of recovery of excise duty pursuant to the impugned order of CEGAT was granted on condition that 50% thereof was paid by the appellants to the excise authorities within 3 months and for the balance 50% the appellants furnished bank guarantees. The appeal was, ultimately, allowed. This court then stated that it "did not propose to go into the question of the refund as it is a matter to be dealt with by the authorities concerned in accordance with law. The appellants shall have to apply for refund and the authorities shall be required to deal with it in accordance with the law. It is for the authorities, therefore, to decide the question as per law. "

( 3 ). Accordingly, on 14/05/1993 the appellants wrote to the first respondent and requested him "to refund the amount and the bank guarantees deposited from time to time under Supreme court of Indias interim orders during the pendency of the above-referred appeals". Since, in their view, the refund application was not being dealt with, the appellants filed a writ petition on 27/08/1993 before the High court of Punjab and Haryana seeking its expeditious disposal. On 18/10/1993 the High court issued a direction to the excise authorities to dispose of the claim of the appellants for "refund/release of bank guarantees" within one month. The High court directed the appellants to have the bank guarantees extended till the final disposal of the claim for refund. Against this order of the High court the special leave petition aforementioned was filed, on which leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed by the order of which review is now sought.

( 4 ). The excise authorities passed an order on 15/11/1993 holding that the amount deposited by the appellants in court and withdrawn by the excise authorities and the amounts covered by the bank guarantees furnished by the appellants pursuant to the interim orders of this court were not refundable to the appellants having regard to the provisions of Section 11-B of the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The bank guarantees not having been renewed, the first respondent then issued upon the bank a demand, pursuant to which the bank guarantees were encashed on 17/11/1993. By our order of 26/11/1993, allowing the Civil as aforestated, we held that the direction issued by the High court in regard to the extension of the bank guarantees was bad because the bank guaranteeswere not the subject-matter of the application for refund pending before the excise authorities. Once this court had decided the earlier appeal against the excise authorities they did not have the power to get the bank guarantees encashed. Accordingly, we directed the excise authorities to repay the amounts collected upon the bank guarantees to the bank.

( 5 ). Section 11-B of the Act provides that person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of central Excise before the expiry of six months from the relevant date and in such form as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty of excise in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from or paid by him and the incidence of such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person.

( 6 ). Mr A. K. Ganguli, learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the