Refund cannot be withheld on an uncommunicated review when an appellate order already directs repayment.

Importers seeking countervailing duty refund on Sorbitol Liquid 70% used in pharmaceutical formulations were entitled to rely on an appellate refund order despite a pending review. The Court noted that the refund claim was administratively closed on the stated ground of review, but no review notice had been served and no material showed any progress of that process. A citizen cannot be kept waiting indefinitely on the basis of an uncommunicated and unexplained review, and the authorities remained bound by the appellate order. Refund was directed by mandamus.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of countervailing duty on the basis of the appellate refund order notwithstanding the pending review action.

Analysis: The petitioners had imported Sorbitol Liquid 70% for use in pharmaceutical formulations and claimed exemption from countervailing duty under Notification No. 55/75. After the Appellate Collector allowed the earlier appeal and directed refund, the petitioners sought refund of duty collected on subsequent consignments. The refund claim was kept administratively closed on the ground that the assessment was under review, but no notice of review had been served and no material was shown as to the progress of any review. The Court held that a citizen could not be kept waiting indefinitely on the basis of an uncommunicated and unexplained review process, and the respondents remained bound by the appellate order.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to refund, and a writ of mandamus was issued directing refund of Rs. 21,742.82 within four weeks.

---