Judgment :- The petitioner challenges an order of the second respondent dated 25-4-1985 in and by which a payment of Rs.1, 32, 731.40 was demanded. 2.The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are the following:- The petitioner admittedly succeeded before the Collector (Appeals) in the matter of levy of excise duty and the revenue not accepting the orders of the Collector (Appeals) preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. When the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the Collector, namely the 2nd respondent herein, has written a letter to the petitioner which reads a follows: "Since our Department has decided to withdraw the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order-in-Appeal No. 401/82 (M) dated 16-11-1982 of the Collector (Appeals) Madras, the demand already issued to you and confirmed in order No. V/2 AA/14/1/81 dated 12-8-1982, except in the case of fluorspar, by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Coonoor Division, has since been reviewed and modified to the extent of covering the period only from 28-2-82 to 29-4-82 as ordered by the Collector (Appeals) Madras.Accordingly, you are required to pay Rs. 45, 498.0 (Rupees forty four thousand eight hundred and sixty nine and paise sixty eight) [Amount in figures and words differs -Ed.], towards the proforma credit wrongly awarded for which a working sheet is attached herewith. (Emphasis supplied) Please note that the amount of duty already taken" as proforma credit relating to the extent of the portions of the materials which are disallowed and lying in your factory unused prior to 28-2-1982 has been included in the amount, now, demanded. You are required to remit the above amount within 10 days of receipt of this letter and to intimate the fact to this office.'Acting on the letter of the 2nd respondent as extracted above the petitioner paid the amount as per the information given by the petitioner within the time and thereafter the petitioner seems to have written a letter to the Tribunal bringing to its notice about the subsequent developments on 20-9-1984. The letter reads as follows :- " The matter in this appeal has still been undecided. In the meanwhile, we have received a communication from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Mettupalayam that the department is withdrawing the appeal and consequently we were given a revised demand asking us to honour the same. The letter reads as follows :- " The matter in this appeal has still been undecided. In the meanwhile, we have received a communication from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Mettupalayam that the department is withdrawing the appeal and consequently we were given a revised demand asking us to honour the same. Accordingly we had credited the amount under challan number I dated 18-9-1984 of Indian Bank, Karamadai. We are enclosing herewith a photo copy of the letter cited above together with a photostat copy of the credit challan for your information. As we agree withthedepartment's withdrawal of the appeal, we also request you to close the appeal as 'withdrawn'. Thanking you.' Somehow or other the office of the 2nd respondent herein failed to take further action on the basis of the letter dated 31-8-1984 which resulted in the Tribunal passing orders on merits in the appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent. That appeal ended in favour of the department and against the petitioner herein. As a result of the orders passed by the Tribunal, the demand notice now impugned has been issued. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent after taking a decision to review and modify the earlier stand and to withdraw the appeal accepting the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals), is not entitled to pass the impugned order demanding the duty in the light of the subsequent order of the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, the 2nd respondent is estopped from going back on his commitment which was not only accepted but also acted upon by the petitioner. Mr. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, submitted that no doubt the 2nd respondent wrote a letter as extracted above and subsequently that decision was not informed to the Tribunal and the 2nd respondent was within his powers when he issued the demand in the light of the order of the Tribunal.4.After hearing counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent is not justified in issuing the impugned demand in the light of the letter written by him in and by which 2nd respondent has made an unequivocal statement (Vide underlined portion supra) and made the petitioner to part with the amount within the stipulated time. The failure on the part of the office of the 2nd respondent should not cause prejudice to the petitioner, who, accepting the offer of the Collector, has acted upon the same as well. I am inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the 2nd respondent is estopped from going back on his statement as given in writing on 31-8-1984. It is not as if the 2nd respondent has no power to take a decision to review and modify the stand. The power to take a decision to file an appeal is provided under Sec. 35A(2) and that authority has subsequently taken a decision to modify the earlier stand. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision was taken by an authority not competent to take such a decision. On that view, the impugned demand is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.