ORDER 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 18-7-1986 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Ratlam/respondent No. 1 whereby the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Division, has rejected the claims of the petitioner of the refund of the excess duty paid by the petitioner over and above the exemption notification issued in favour of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are thus : The petitioner M/s. Supreme Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Sejwaya, is a manufacturer of Super Enamled Copper Wire falling under old Tariff Item 33B of Central Excise Tariff having L-4 Licence No. 1/RTM/R-II/EW & C/82 filed two refund claims, one for sum of Rs. 1,10,112.23 for the period from 27-4-1983 to 31-3-1984 and another for Rs. 64,107.93 for the period from 12-4-1984 to 7-1-1985. The Government of India allowed the exemption from payment of Central Excise duty on first clearance up to value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs provided the clearance during the previous financial year had not exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs. Their clearance during the previous financial year, i.e., 1983-84 were Rs. 20,20,678.32 as such they were entitled to the exemption during the year 1984-85 on the first clearance up to value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs and on further clearance up to the value of Rs. 17.5 lakhs were to be charged duty at 75% of such duty, by Notification No. 83/83, dated 1-3-1983 as amended by Notification No. 133/83, dated 24-4-1983. It is alleged that since the petitioner was not aware of the above notification, petitioner paid duty on its products at the full rate, i.e., basic of 10% and also special duty 5% of basic duty for the entire year. Therefore, the petitioner filed a claim petition claiming the excess duty paid to the Govt. of India. Likewise for the next Rs. 64,107.93, the petitioner paid the excess duty and claimed the aforesaid amount for refund. Both these applications for refund of amount were rejected by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Division, Ratlam, on 18-7-1985, being barred by limitation of six months as envisaged in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner has filed this present petition before this Court. 3. Smt. Nair learned Counsel for the respondents has raised the objection that the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Division, Ratlam, on 18-7-1985, being barred by limitation of six months as envisaged in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner has filed this present petition before this Court. 3. Smt. Nair learned Counsel for the respondents has raised the objection that the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Division, is an appealable order and, therefore, this petition should not be heard on merit and it should be dismissed as the petitioner has a statutory remedy. 4. It is true that we would have certainly upheld this objection and dismissed the petition but that petition remained pending here since 1987 before this Court; therefore, the dismissal of this petition on this ground will not be proper exercise of jurisdiction. Apart from this, we are satisfied that there is no merit in this petition. The petitioner has bonafidely paid the duty more than the duty prescribed for manufacture of products; but the claim petition filed by him is beyond the period of six months under the Act; therefore, the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Division, was well justified in rejecting their time barred claim petition. Even apart from that, the entire excess duty realised by the petitioner has been passed on to the consumer. The petitioner has collected the excess duty paid by him from the consumer, therefore, the petitioner can not, in any way, claim this amount of excess duty paid by him and which has gone into public exchequer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition and we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Division, Ratlam, dated 18-7-1985. Hence this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner.