JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, CJ. - Heard Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Gupta, Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government. 2. This writ petition is directed against a notice dated 23.7.1980 issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division-II, Ghaziabad calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the refund claim filed by him should not be rejected for the reasons mentioned in the said notice. 3. The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of angles, bars and rods, which were, at the relevant time, dutiable under Entry No. 26-AA(I-A) of the Schedule to the Central Excise Act. The petitioner say that during the period 25.9.1968 to 29.9.1973, he cleared goods weighing 2506.068 Metric Tonnes and paid a duty to the tune of Rs. 1,90,159.73 thereon. The petitioner says that the Government had issued an Order under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, exempting the said products from duty vide Government Notification dated 30.11.1983. Be that as it may a Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7709 of 1973 connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7710 of 1973 Messrs Bansal Steel Sons and Co. (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India and Ors. (decided on 18.1.1974) - 1974 JCC 1 held that no duty is leviable on these products. The petitioner says that as soon as he came to know of the said judgment, he filed an application, on 24.3.1975, for refund of the duty paid by him. According to him the said duty was paid under mistake of law. To this, the Superintendent, Central Excise, filed several objections, which objections, according to the petitioner, were removed by him. Be that as it may, by his order dated 18.3.1977, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ghaziabad rejected the petitioner's claim for refund mainly on the ground that it is barred by limitation prescribed in Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, as it then stood. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act, which, he says, was allowed on 14.2.1978. Under this order the Appellate Collector held that the petitioner's claim was not time barred and since the duty was paid under mistake the petitioner is entitled to refund. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act, which, he says, was allowed on 14.2.1978. Under this order the Appellate Collector held that the petitioner's claim was not time barred and since the duty was paid under mistake the petitioner is entitled to refund. In spite of this judgment, the petitioner says, no refund was made, whereupon he issued notices to the respondents on 22.3.1979 calling upon them to effect refund. It is then that the Assistant Collector issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his refund claim should not be rejected for the reasons mentioned therein. The petitioner did not furnish an explanation to the said show cause notice but questioned the same by way of this writ petition in this Court. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it is submitted, inter alia, that inasmuch as the petitioner has passed on the burden of the excise duty to the consumers, he cannot, in equity, claim the refund since it amounts to unjust enrichment of the petitioner. Certain other objections were raised to which it is not necessary to refer in the light of the course we are adopting in the writ petition. 5. A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein it is denied that the petitioner has passed on the burden of the excise duly to the consumers. He stated that he has not collected any duty from the customers whatsoever. It is not necessary to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of this assertion. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the Appellate Collector has v decided that the petitioner is entitled to refund, it is not open to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise to raise fresh objections at this stage. He submitted that the only course open to the Assistant Collector was to effect refund and that he cannot be allowed to raise the objections from time to time and in any event after the order of the Appellate Collector which has become final. So far as the objection to unjust enrichment is concerned, he says that the said allegation has been specifically denied in the rejoinder-affidavit and, therefore, it cannot be ground for refusing the refund. 7. So far as the objection to unjust enrichment is concerned, he says that the said allegation has been specifically denied in the rejoinder-affidavit and, therefore, it cannot be ground for refusing the refund. 7. Unjust enrichment is a relevant factor when this Court is called upon to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, there are several other objections which are raised in the show cause notice and the proper course, in these circumstances, is that the petitioner is relegated to the Assistant Collector where he can urge all these contentions. 8. In the circumstances, we decline to interfere at this stage of the proceedings. The petitioner shall submit an explanation to the impugned show cause notice, if not already submitted within six weeks from today. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division II, Ghaziabad shall consider the same and pass suitable orders thereon within two months from the date of the receipt of the explanation to the show cause notice. 9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 10. No costs. 11. A copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within a week.