JUDGMENT : 1. In this case, the refund claims pertain to two distinct periods. One is commencing on April 1, 1980 and ending with February 28, 1985 and the other claim is for the period commencing on October 1, 1984 and ending with March 31, 1985. The demand of duty made for the said two periods was ultimately withdrawn on December 4, 1986. Soon thereafter, i.e., on December 22, 1986, the respondent filed a refund claim. On this application for refund, the Assistant Collector called upon the respondent-assessee to show cause why his refund claim be not denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. The respondent showed cause but it is stated that the matter is pending and that the refund application is still pending. While so, in 1991, the respondent filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court which was allowed on July 22, 1991. The High Court directed that the refund should be made within eight weeks from the date of the order. Against the said order of the Bombay High Court, the present appeal is filed. The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Bombay High Court impugned herein is set aside. 2. The claim for refund which was filed by the respondent-assessee on December 22, 1986 shall now be dealt with and disposed of in the light of the judgment in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India [ 1996 (9) SCALE 457 ], as per Clause (6) of the format order (copy enclosed) which reads as follows : "Where a refund application or an appeal is preferred under and in accordance with the directions (1), (2), (3) and (4) above, the same shall be entertained only if the applicant for refund/appellant files affidavit stating that he has not passed on the burden of the duty, which is claimed by way of refund, to another person. In case the applicant for refund is a company or a society, the affidavit shall be sworn by the Managing Director or the Principal Officer of the Company or the Society, as the case may be. Such an affidavit shall be treated as an averment/assertion which an applicant for refund has to make in terms of the judgment in Mafatlal. 3. No costs.