T.N. Singh, J.

1. Two petitioners have a common cause and essentially the same relief both having claimed, against same respondents, we have heard these two matters analogously. Order was reserved on 21-1-1992 when hearing was finally concluded and we did so because it was submitted that this Court's D. B. decision, rendered at the Indore Bench in M. P. No. 1344 of 1987, decided on 4-4-1989, Dhar Cement Ltd. v. Union of India deserved reconsideration. That decision is reported in 1991 (54) E.L.T. 178 (M.P.J.)

2. After we deliberated, giving to the matter our anxious consideration, we have reached finally the conclusion that, for reasons to follow, no case is made out for accepting the prayer. We are of the view that concession claimed in Excise Duty payable by the two petitioners on cement produced in their plants is misconceived and that the Government of India having duly discharged its obligation undertaken in the Press Note dated 11-1-1979 (hereinbelow extracted), in the manner statutorily envisaged, there is no scope for saddling further liability on the Government by issuing against it a mandamus to perform a statutory function as may not serve public interest but may obli