Judgment :- The petitioners in all the above three writ petitions are one and the same and the issue involved for consideration is also identical and consequently they are considered together. 2.W.P. 10775 of 1983 has been filed for a writ ofcertiorarified mandamusto call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 3-9-1983 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund of the excess central excise said to have been paid by the petitioner for the period from 1-10-1975 to 31-3-1979 and consequently direct refund of the same. 3.W.P. 10776 of 1983 has been filed for a writ ofcertiorarified mandamusto call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 12-10-1983 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 26-3-1983 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund of the excess central excise said to have been paid by the petitioner in respect of the period from 1-9-1979 to 30-11-1980 and consequently direct refund of the same. 4.W.P. 10777 of 1983 has been filed for a writ ofcertiorarified mandamusto call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 27-7-1983 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 15-2-1983 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the refund of excess central excise said to have been paid in respect of the period from 1-4-1979 to 31-8-1979 and consequently direct refund of the same. 5.The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of calcium carbide, falling under Item No. 14AA of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioner also manufactures metal containers for packing of the calcium carbide. The petitioner was filing price lists for calcium carbide periodically till 26-11-1980 and that the assessable value of the same invariably included in the cost of the metal containers/drums used for packing the chemical. The price lists were duly approved from time to time and the duty was being paid without any objection and the assessable value of the calcium carbide invariably included the cost of metal drums also. 6.On 26-11-1980 the petitioner filed a revised price list for calcium carbide excluding the cost of metal containers from the assessable value and requested for approval with effect from 1-12-1980 claiming for the first time exclusion of value of packing material on the ground that the same was durable and returnable. 6.On 26-11-1980 the petitioner filed a revised price list for calcium carbide excluding the cost of metal containers from the assessable value and requested for approval with effect from 1-12-1980 claiming for the first time exclusion of value of packing material on the ground that the same was durable and returnable. The Assistant Collector, in his order dated 21-8-1981 appears to have held that the cost of metal drums were not excludable from the assessable value of calcium carbide on the ground that the drums are not durable and not actually returned by the buyer to the assessee. On appeal filed against such order of the Assistant Collector to the Appellate Collector, Madras, by an order passed on 24-10-1981, the Appellate Authority held that the cost of metal drums should be excluded from the price of calcium and returnable. Deriving inspiration by the said order, the petitioner appears to have filed three claim applications on 7-4-1982, 28-4-1982 and 4-11-1982 claiming refund of a sum of Rs. 8, 28, 166.97, Rs. 2, 06, 204.75 and Rs. 10, 55, 738.08 respectively. The application dated 7-4-1982 was in respect of the period from 1-9-1979 to 3-11-1980, while the one dated 28-4-1982 was for the period from 1-4-1979 to 31-8-1979 and the other application dated 4-11-1979 was in respect of the period from 1-10-1975 to 31-3-1979. The application dated 7-4-1982, 28-4-1982 and 4-11-1982 were rejected by the Assistant Collector, Tirunelveli by his orders dated 26-3-1983, 15-2-1983 and 3-9-1983 respectively. In respect of the orders dated 15-2-1983 and 26-3-1983 of the Assistant Collector, Tirunelveli, further appeals before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras were filed and the same were also rejected by his orders dated 27-7-1983 and 12-10-1983 respectively and in respect of the order dated 3-9-1983 passed by the Assistant Collector, there was no appeal and the orders have become Final. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the above writ petitions. 7.The learned counsel appearing on either side referred to some of the judicial pronouncements in support of the respective stands taken during the course of hearing. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the above writ petitions. 7.The learned counsel appearing on either side referred to some of the judicial pronouncements in support of the respective stands taken during the course of hearing. While the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of those judgments, contended that notwithstanding the stipulation contained in Section 11B of the Act, this Court, at any rate, is entitled to order refund of the duty levied, collected and paid under a mistake of law in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the fact that the person seeking refund has in fact passed on the burden to the ultimate consumer or the subsequent purchaser from the manufacturer, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, disputed this claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the authorities exercising jurisdiction under the provision of an Act are bound by the stipulation contained in the Act pertaining to the grant of refund and that no exception could be taken to the impugned order passed in the above cases. The learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the claim in the cases on hand was a belated one and that even on merits, the petitioner in all the above cases is not entitled to the refund. Argued the learned counsel further that the request of the petitioner for refund if complied with would also amount to perpetuating unjust enrichment the petitioner having passed on the burden by collecting the excise duty also from their purchasers as well as ultimate consumers. Finally, reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondents on the provisions contained in the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act (Central Act 40/1991) which came into force with effect from 20-9-1991. The provisions of the said Act introduced several amendments to Sections 11B and 11C of the Central Excise Act and also inserted Section 11D. 8.The amendments introduced by the Amendment Act 40/1991 not only regulate the manner of refund and the conditions to be satisfied before claiming any refund, but also prohibits any refund being ordered except in accordance with the amended provisions contained in the Amendment Act 40/1991. 8.The amendments introduced by the Amendment Act 40/1991 not only regulate the manner of refund and the conditions to be satisfied before claiming any refund, but also prohibits any refund being ordered except in accordance with the amended provisions contained in the Amendment Act 40/1991. As a matter of fact, Govindasamy, inBurn Standard Company Limited, Salem by its Area General Managerv.The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras and Others(writ petition No. 9436 of 1983 dated 29-10-1991) expressed the view that after the coming into force of the Amendment Act 40/1991, the relief of refund cannot be granted by this Court straightway and gave liberty to the petitioner concerned in the said case to move the authorities concerned under the provisions of the Amendment Act seeking for the relief of refund before such authorities under the provisions of the Amended Act. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken and the course of action adopted by the learned Judge in the said decision. In view of this, I consider it to be unnecessary to deal with at length the conflicting claims of the learned counsel appearing on either side by referring to every one of those judicial pronouncements produced by them in support of their respective submissions. 9.In the above circumstances, without entering into an adjudication of the merits and the claim for refund made by the petitioner or the legality or correctness of the stand taken by the respondents to deny the same, the impugned orders are hereby quashed to facilitate the concerned and competent authorities to consider the claims of the petitioner on merits including any plea of limitation in accordance with the provisions contained in the Amendment Act, 40/1991. The petitioner, in addition to the representations and claims made already which culminated in the impugned proceedings shall be at liberty to make such further or other representations to the concerned and competent authorities in the light of the amended provisions within eight weeks from today and as and when such representations are made, the concerned and competent authorities shall also consider the same in accordance with law including the question of delay in making the claim and pass appropriate orders regarding the claim of the petitioner. The writ petitions are partly allowed to the extent indicated above, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.