Refund cannot be withheld on an uncommunicated review; appellate refund order remains binding until lawfully displaced.

Refund of countervailing duty on imported consignments could not be withheld merely because the assessment was said to be under review, where an appellate authority had already allowed the refund and no review notice had been served. The court treated the administrative closure of the refund claims as insufficient to displace the operative appellate order, and held that authorities remained bound by that order until it was lawfully set aside. On that basis, the refusal to process the refund was not sustained, and mandamus for refund followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of countervailing duty on the imported consignments could be withheld on the ground that the assessment was stated to be under review, notwithstanding an earlier appellate order allowing refund and the exemption claimed under Notification No. 55/75.

Analysis: The appellate authority had already allowed the petitioners' appeal and directed refund of the countervailing duty. The subsequent communication merely stated that the refund claims were being kept administratively closed pending review, but no notice of review had been served and no material was shown to explain the indefinite delay. A citizen cannot be made to wait indefinitely for an uncommunicated review process, and the authorities remained bound by the appellate order until it was lawfully displaced.

Conclusion: The refusal to process the refund on the basis of pending review was not sustained, and the petitioners were entitled to a mandamus directing refund of the countervailing duty.

---