This writ application has been filed for refund of an amount of Rs.85,600 being the value of 56 bags of poppy seeds released plus Rs. 500 being the penalty amount with a further claim for interest @ 18% PA. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : 3. The petitioner is a business man at Guwahati. That 144 bags of poppy seeds were despatched from Manipur to the petitioner for arranging transportation thereof. The Custom authority seized the said 144 bags of poppy seeds weighing 9,800 Kg on 24.12.85 under the seizure case. The goods being perishable in nature, were released provisionally on payment of security of the full value of Rs.l,56,000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs and Central Excise at Shillong and thereafter the Collector of Customs and Central Excise passed the following finding and order was passed : “Findings : I have gone through the case records including reply to the show cause notice, submissions made at the time of personal hearing and further written submissions made at the time of personal hearing. I find that out of 144 bags of poppy seeds seized the party had purchased 56 bags of poppy seeds locally in Imphal and 76 bags were released to them by the Customs at Dimapur and 12 bags at Imphal. As the party has their office in Imphal, therefore, I am prepared to accept that 76 bags released by the Customs to them at Dimapur were taken by them to Imphal. Thus, I hold that out of 144 bags poppy seed seized by the Customs, 88 bags were accounted for and legally procured by them. For remaining 56 bags the party has submitted a number of pleas indicating that poppy seeds were available in Manipur. In support of this they produce a letter from the Deputy Director of Agriculture as also some news papers. The Deputy Director, Agriculture's letter indicate that some villages in Manipur had started growing posta. As the laws stand today, opium poppy can not be grown in any part of India unless licences are issued by the Central Govt. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the plea that 56 bags of poppy seeds which could not be accounted for by the party as legally procured were actually grown in some villages in Manipur. As the laws stand today, opium poppy can not be grown in any part of India unless licences are issued by the Central Govt. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the plea that 56 bags of poppy seeds which could not be accounted for by the party as legally procured were actually grown in some villages in Manipur. Further party's contention that the prices were being quoted in some news papers about the rate at which poppy seeds were available in Imphal on this I can only say that as opium poppy is permitted to be legally cultivated in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. I think poppy seeds can find its way elsewhere also in India from these States. As the party could not produce any evidence indicating that these poppy seeds were procured by them from cultivators or wholesale dealers in these States the contention of the party fails. Order: Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I hold that out of 144 bags of poppy seeds seized by Customs, 88 bags were legally procured by the parties. Remaining 56 bags were, therefore, obtained clandestinely and therefore, and confiscated absolutely under section 11 (b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962.1 also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 1,000 (Rs one thousand only) on Shri Dharamvir Choudhury, Thandal Bazar, Imphal. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs.500 (Rs five hundred) on Shri Jhumermal Jain, Shop No. 5, TR Phukan Road, Guwahati and Rs.500 (Rs five hundred) on M/s Assam Haryana Roadways (Pvt) Ltd, Guwahati for arranging sale and transport of the goods under section 112 (b) of the said Act. As the 56 bags confiscated absolutely have been e released against the deposit of value thereof. I therefore, appropriate Rs. 85,680 being the value of the 56 bags of poppy seeds confiscated absolutely to the Govt Account. Remaining amount may be refunded. Penalties, etc may be recovered separately." 3. There was an appeal by the petitioner before the appellate authority at Calcutta being Appeal No.C-219/87-CAL. The appellate authority in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment has held as follows : “6. There is not even an iota of evidence shown by the Department that the said poppy seeds (posta) are of Burmese origin. There is also nothing to show that these are not of Indian origin. The appellate authority in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment has held as follows : “6. There is not even an iota of evidence shown by the Department that the said poppy seeds (posta) are of Burmese origin. There is also nothing to show that these are not of Indian origin. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that no poppy seeds is grown in Manipur, merely because the said goods are from an area where there is no cultivation of poppy seeds, it cannot be concluded that these are smuggled from Burma. Because, even otherwise, possibility of such poppy seeds being got to these places from other Indian territory cannot be excluded. 7. The appellant relied on the Order No. A-755 & 756/CAL/1991 dated 22.11.1991 passed by this Bench in the case of Shri Baij Nath Prasad Gupta & others vs. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Shillong in Appeals No. 277/85-CAL and 278/85 CAL which fairly and squarely covers. The present case of the appellant within all its fours. Hence there is no proof to show that these are smuggled poppy seeds from Burma and the same is not liable to confiscation. Since these poppy seeds are already released in favour of the appellant on deposit of Rs. 1,56,800 and since these are not liable to be confiscated, the appropriation of this amount towards confiscation is not warranted in law. So also the imposition of penalty on the appellant is riot legal and we set aside the same.” 4. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed with the consequential relief. In spite of this order and in spite of the application filed on 13.12.1993 and reminder on 29.8.1994 and letter 1.6.1995 and 26.9.1996 the amount was not refunded back. Hence writ application for refund of the amount along with the prayer for payment of interest. 5.1 have heard Sri NM Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D. Sur, learned Advocate for the opposite parties. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos 1, 2 and 3. From the affidavit-in-opposition it is seen that after filing of this civil rule (CR filed on 9.1.1997) by cheque dated 5.3.1997 an amount has been paid and that is Annexure 1 to the affidavit-in-opposition. D. Sur, learned Advocate for the opposite parties. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos 1, 2 and 3. From the affidavit-in-opposition it is seen that after filing of this civil rule (CR filed on 9.1.1997) by cheque dated 5.3.1997 an amount has been paid and that is Annexure 1 to the affidavit-in-opposition. The stan4 taken in the affidavit-in-opposition is that no interest is payable in respect of deposits and as such the petitioner is not entitled for interest and in support of it reliance is placed in section 27A and it is submitted that it relates to the payment of interest on delay refund of customs duties. 6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments: (i) 1991 (55) ELT 433 (SC) (Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd) wherein the Supreme Court pointed out that the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not 'acceptable' to the department in itself an objectionable phrase and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws. (ii) Next case relied on is 1995 (80) ELT 777 (Bom) (Amin Mehdi Merchant vs. SM Kamik, Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay). That was a case when refund claim filed in April, 1982 but rejected on appeal. The Appellate Collector accepted the plea of assessee and directed for refund of amount in question. Appeal was filed by the department to the CEGAT against the order of Appellate Collector which was rejected in May, 1986, still refund not granted till 1995 and in the facts of the case the refund was ordered with interest @ 12% PA form the date of order of the Appellate Tribunal till the date of payment. (iii) Next case relied on is 1991 (55) ELT 167 (Bom) (Vidarbha Veneer Industries vs. Assistant Collector of C. Excise) where the Bombay High Court pointed out that the unjust enrichment to petitioner not to be attributed when a competent Tribunal passed order upon legality of claim made by petitioner. 7. (iii) Next case relied on is 1991 (55) ELT 167 (Bom) (Vidarbha Veneer Industries vs. Assistant Collector of C. Excise) where the Bombay High Court pointed out that the unjust enrichment to petitioner not to be attributed when a competent Tribunal passed order upon legality of claim made by petitioner. 7. In this particular case it will be seen that the first application was for refund which was filed on 13.12.93 and thereafter reminders were issued from time to time as will be seen from paragraph 7 of the writ application but the refund was made only on 5.3.97 after a lapse of about 3 years. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is on 7th September, 1993 vide Annexure C to the writ application. So, the petitioner is entitled to the interest from 16.12.1993 to 5.3.1997 @ 9% PA on the amount of Rs.85,600. The interest shall be paid by the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order after necessary calculation. 8. This disposes of the writ application. No costs. 9. The petitioner may obtain the certified copy of this order and may produce the same before the authority to do the needful in terms of this order.