Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 7-3-1984 passed by the respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ application only to the extent of his observation to the following effect :- "With regard to the classification I only observe that the change in the classification will be effective from the date of the Tribunal order and this will not have any retrospective effect." 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow campass. 3. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Harrow Discus and Agrico tools. It submitted its returns under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as the said "Act") for the period February, 1978 to November, 1978 treating the same to be falling under Tariff Item No. 51A of the Schedule appended to the said Act, on clearance of the said product. 4. On 31-12-1981 the said returns were returned back after proper assessment and thereafter the petitioners filed an application for refund of the excess excise duty allegedly paid by it on 13-2-1982 before the Superintendent of Central Excise. The said application for refund was returned by the inspector and the same was re-filed before the appropriate authority on 10-6-1983. 5. Upon the said application for refund, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise held that the same was barred under the law of limitation. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2 who in terms of the impugned order as contained in Annexure 6 to the wirt application, allowed the said appeal and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision in accordance with law but at the end of his order, he made the offending observation as indicated hereinbefore. 7. Mr. A.B.S. Sinha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order of remand was passed as the said case required factual verification. 8. 7. Mr. A.B.S. Sinha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order of remand was passed as the said case required factual verification. 8. In its order dated 23-5-1983, as contained in Annexure 7 to the writ application, the Tribunal held that the endorsement of the Assistant Collector to the effect that Harrow Discs and Coal cutting picks are not forged products is wrong and further held as follows :- "To hold that the authorities below have erred in holding these two products to be falling under T.I. 68. In the view we have taken the appeal has to be allowed on the point of classification and the other issues regarding time bar etc. became redundant. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the authorities below. The appellant shall be entitled to consequential relief whatever may follow from the fact of the appeal being allowed." 9. It is thus clear that the order of the Tribunal was to take effect on the basis of the finding which may be arrived at by the concerned authority pursuant to the aforementioned order as contained in Annexure 7 to the writ application. It was, therefore, not permissible in for the respondent No. 2 to make any observation which may be considered to be a direction to the Assistant Collector of Excise to the effect that the period of refund, if any, should be computed from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal. 10. Mr. Debi Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that no order of assessment has yet been passed by the Central Excise authorities. He further submitted that the writ application is not maintainable as against an observation made by the appellate authority. The learned Counsel further submitted, in any event, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the aforementioned observation, it was open to it to take recourse of Sec. 35B of the said Act. 11. He further submitted that the writ application is not maintainable as against an observation made by the appellate authority. The learned Counsel further submitted, in any event, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the aforementioned observation, it was open to it to take recourse of Sec. 35B of the said Act. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that although normally a writ court does not exercise its discretion merely against an observation which may or may not amount to a direction to the subordinate authority but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, no amount of doubt should be left to exist so as to make the issue confusing at the hands of the Assistant Collector. 12. As indicating hereinbefore, the Tribunals order is explicit and in view of the fact that it merely directed the assessing authority to arrive at a finding with regard to a proper classification in respect of the aforementioned items. It is needless to add that the question as to whether the petitioner shall be entitled to refund or not would depend upon the order to be passed by the Assistant Collector himself with regard to the classification of the aforementioned items and the same has nothing to do with the date when the Tribunal passed that order. 13. As the writ application has already been admitted, in my opinion, it will not be proper for this Court to refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. 14. In this view of the matter, this writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned herinbefore. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. 15. As the matter had been pending in this court for a long time, I hope and trust that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise shall dispose of the matter with utmost expedition.