Refund claim remains premature where classification and duty liability are still pending after a directed re-test of goods.

Refund entitlement was treated as dependent on the final determination of classification and duty liability. Where the appellate authority had directed a fresh test of the goods and a consequential final order was still awaited, the dispute remained unresolved. In that situation, the writ petition seeking refund was not considered fit for grant at that stage and was rejected as premature.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking refund could be entertained when the classification dispute remained pending and a re-test had been directed before final adjudication.

Analysis: The refund claim depended upon the final determination of the classification and duty liability. The appellate authority had already directed a fresh test of the goods and a fresh order on the basis of the re-test. Since the respondent had not yet passed the consequential final order, the dispute was still alive and unresolved. In such circumstances, the Court found no basis to grant the refund at that stage.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for grant of refund at this stage and was rejected.

---