The amended Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section 2 of Section 11B.

SOMASUNDARAM, J.

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order in W.P. No. 6260 of 1987 directing the appellants to refund a sum of Rs. 16, 59, 72130 with interest at 12% p.a. from 23-6-1987 to the respondent within four weeks from 8-1-1991.

2.The respondent herein is a manufacturer of Service Station equipments. The first appellant in his order dated 30-8-1983 confirmed the earlier order passed by his predecessor and demanded a sum of Rs. 1, 15, 502.57 towards the differential duty for the period from 10-1-1979 to 31-3-1980. As against the said order of the first appellant, the respondent filed an appeal before the third appellant and by his order dated 19-11-1083, the third appellant set aside the order of the first appellant dated 30-8-1983 and remanded the matter to the first appellant with a direction to approve the price-list based on the sales value at the factory gate under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter called the Act). Pursuant to the order, dated 19-11-1983 passed by the 3rd appellant, the first appellant by the order, dated 20-10-1984 approved the price-list under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act i.e., the price at which the goods are sold at the factory gate to the independent buyers. Further, an application for refund of Rs. 19, 83, 225.64 was also filed by the respondent before the first appellant. Thereafter, the second appellant filed an appeal against the order of the first appellant dated 20-10-1984 in Appeal No. 58 of 1986 before the 3rd appellant. By the order dated 12-5-1986, the third appellant set aside the order dated 20-10-1984 on the ground that the order dated 20-10-1984 is not in conformity with the order passed by the third appellant dated 19-11-1983. Aggrieved by the order dated 12-5-1986 the respondent filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal by the order dated 20-3-1987 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the third appellant dated 12-5-1986 on the ground that the department has not filed any appeal against the order of 3rd appellant dated 19-11-1983 and it has become final. In the meantime, by the order dated 30-9-1986, the first appellant rejected the respondent's claim for refund of Rs. 19, 83, 225.64. Against the order of the first appellant dated 30-9-1986, rejecting the respondent's claim for refund, an appeal was filed in appeal No. 13 of 1987 before the 3rd appellant. By the order dated 30-4-1987, the third appellant allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the first appellant dated 30-9-1986 and remanded the matter to the first appellant with a direction to decide the refund claim, if admissible otherwise, as per Section 11B of the Act. Pursuant to the order of the 3rd appellant dated 30-4-1987, the respondent on 2-5 1987, submitted an application for refund. Thereafter, the respondent also filed W.P. No. 6260/87 before this court praying for the issue ofmandamusdirecting the appellants to refund the sum of Rs. 19, 83, 225.64 together with interest at 12% p.a. from April 1980. Subsequently, on 18-8-1988, the first appellant passed an order rejecting the refund claims made by the respondent on 2-5-1987. As against the said order dated 18-8-1988, the respondent filed an appeal before the third appellant who by the order dated 8-5-1989 dismissed the said appeal.

3.The appellants herein as respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition 6260/87 filed counter affidavit contending that the assessee/respondent herein has been making sales to branches and distributors; that refund can be sanctioned only after verifying all the documents of the assessee including the branch sales invoices; that the first appellant directed the assessee to produce the relevant documents for sanctioning the eligible refund amount to them, but, the respondent herein has not produced the same before the first appellant; and that the first appellant has taken sincere efforts to r