https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44755 Restitution could not be ordered for an amount already paid in excess of duty, refunded long before, where the department had never asserted any claim to retain or recover that excess either before the High Court or later. On those facts, the refund claim had attained finality on payment and was not a pending matter capable of reopening through restitution. The Supreme Court noted that Mafatlal Industries did not assist the revenue on this factual matrix. The direction to restore the refunded amount, with interest, was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:43:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44755 Restitution could not be ordered for an amount already paid in excess of duty, refunded long before, where the department had never asserted any claim to retain or recover that excess either before the High Court or later. On those facts, the refund claim had attained finality on payment and was not a pending matter capable of reopening through restitution. The Supreme Court noted that Mafatlal Industries did not assist the revenue on this factual matrix. The direction to restore the refunded amount, with interest, was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44755