JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the refund of Rs. 65,892. 00 to which they became entitled in view of the order passed by the Tribunal was not made by the respondents with interest. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are these. In course of business the first petitioner supplied certain goods to a Kashmir Oxygen Limited having its place of work in Srinagar. According to the first petitioner, the equipment supplied was a heat exchanger, while the respondents considered the equipment to be a refrigeration unit. Excise duty payable by the first petitioner was paid treating the equipment as heat exchanger. The respondents thought that higher amount of excise duty was payable for the equipment as it was a refrigeration unit. ( 3 ) AS a result the Collector of Central Excise initiated a proceeding and passed order dated June 7,1984 asking the first petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs. 65,892. 00 towards excise duty payable on account of sale of the equipment in question. ( 4 ) THE first petitioner felt aggrieved and preferred an appeal before the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Although the first petitioner filed requisite application for dispensing with the requirement of predeposit of the determined amount, the Tribunal directed the deposit and accordingly on December 29,1984 the sum of Rs. 65,892. 00 was deposited with the adjudicating authority. ( 5 ) BY order dated June 8, 1988 the Tribunal allowed the appeal. While setting aside the order of the adjudicating authority dated June 7, 1984, the Tribunal directed fresh adjudication. ( 6 ) ON being successful in the appeal, on June 27,1988 the first petitioner requested the adjudicating authority to refund the sum of Rs. 65,892. 00. On August 29, 1988 the Assistant Collector informed the first petitioner that till fresh decision in the proceeding the refund would not be made. The adjudicating authority gave the fresh decision on March 7, 1991. He held that there was no reason to initiate the proceeding. Direction was given by him for dropping the proceeding and giving the consequential reliefs to the first petitioner. ( 7 ) THE first petitioner again applied for refund of the said sum of Rs. 65,892. 00. The adjudicating authority gave the fresh decision on March 7, 1991. He held that there was no reason to initiate the proceeding. Direction was given by him for dropping the proceeding and giving the consequential reliefs to the first petitioner. ( 7 ) THE first petitioner again applied for refund of the said sum of Rs. 65,892. 00. On February 19, 1992 the Superintendent of Central Excise asked the first petitioner to submit two more copies of the refund application. The directions were immediately complied with. On March 27, 1992 the Collector of Central Excise preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the decision of the adjudicating authority dated March 7, 1997. By order dated November 3, 1999 (105) E. L. T. 445 the Tribunal dismissed such appeal. ( 8 ) ONCE again the first petitioner requested the Collector to refund the said sum of Rs. 65,892. 00. The first petitioner also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from December 29, 1984 to November 28, 1998. Reminders sent by the first petitioner failed to yield any result till February 17, 1999 when the authorities, asked the first petitioner to submit application for refund in terms of Section 11b of the Central Excise Act, 1944. ( 9 ) FEELING aggrieved by the actions and inactions of the Central Excise authorities in the matter of refund of the said sum of Rs. 65,892. 00 with interest, the petitioners took out the present writ petition on June 23,1999. ( 10 ) THEREAFTER the Central Excise authorities issued a cheque for Rs. 65,982. 00. On presentation such cheque dated February 23, 2000 was dishonoured. Subsequently the amount was realised by the petitioners after presenting the cheque once again. ( 11 ) IN view of the above noted developments the only question that has remained for adjudication in this writ petition is whether the petitioners are entitled to interest for delay in refunding the said sum of Rs. 65,892. 00 by the Central Excise authorities, and, if so, what should be its rate. ( 12 ) ADVOCATE for the petitioners argues that the amount in question was deposited in terms of Section 35f of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He points out that the deposit was in the nature of security furnished at the appellate stage of the proceeding which had gone against the petitioners at the adjudicating authority stage. ( 12 ) ADVOCATE for the petitioners argues that the amount in question was deposited in terms of Section 35f of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He points out that the deposit was in the nature of security furnished at the appellate stage of the proceeding which had gone against the petitioners at the adjudicating authority stage. By referring me to the division bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Nelco Limited v. Union of India, reported at 2002 (144) E. L. T. 56 (Bom.) he proposes that the deposit was not because of any admitted statutory liability of the petitioners. He contends that because of the nature of the deposit question of its refund was not to be connected in any manner by any one with the provisions of Section 11b of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He contends that as was held by the division bench of the Bombay High Court the amount deposited by the first petitioner in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal became payable to the first petitioner the moment the appeal was finally decided by the Tribunal in favour of the first petitioner. For the purpose of showing the petitioners' entitlement to interest he has invited my attention to para 7 of the Bombay High Court decision. He has also read para 7 of the Supreme Court decision in Kuil Fire Works Industries v. Collector of Central Excise. When I asked him what would be the fair and reasonable rate of interests, if I am inclined to allow interest to the petitioners, he has very fairly said that keeping in view the prevailing rates of interest during the period in question interests at the rate of 10% per annum if granted by me would be fair and reasonable. ( 13 ) WHILE opposing the prayer for interest, advocate for the respondents has submitted that in any case, in the year 1998, when the proceeding initiated by the adjudicating authority came to the end, the prevailing rate of interest was not 10% and hence if it is ultimately found that the petitioners are entitled to interest, this court should not grant interests at the rate of 10% and interest should be granted at a lower rate. ( 14 ) ON merits he argues that the Tribunal did not give any direction for refunding the amount in question with interest. ( 14 ) ON merits he argues that the Tribunal did not give any direction for refunding the amount in question with interest. He refers to the decision dated March 7, 1991 of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, and points out that in the fresh decision given by the adjudicating authority no direction was given for refunding the amount in question with interest. On these grounds, he says that the petitioners would not be entitled to interest as claimed by them. ( 15 ) I do not see any reason why the petitioners should not get interest for the inordinate delay on the part of the Central Excise authorities in refunding the said sum of Rs. 65,892. 00. I agree with advocate for the petitioners that the proposition of law laid down by the division bench of the Bombay High Court would squarely apply to the present case. In that case their Lordships said :"6. Mr. Jetley made an effort to persuade us that the consequence of the CEGAT's order was that the petitioner would continue to be liable for the duty demanded initially and that the deposit was legitimately and rightfully withhold by the Respondents. We are unable to accept this contention. The CEGAT's order dated 24th January, 1997 remands the matter for adjudication by the adjudicating authority. In other words, the parties were put back to the situation of a show cause notice against the petitioner being adjudicated by the authority. Mr. Jetley fairly conceded that there is no provision in the Act which requires deposit of any amount at the stage of adjudication and that the only provision which requires deposit is Section 35f of the Act after the adjudication has quantified the liability towards duty. If these are the circumstances, then we see no reason how the respondents were entitled to hold on to the money merely because the adjudication was proceeding on the original show cause notice, that too on demands which were hopelessly time-barred, as subsequently pointed out by the Supreme Court. " ( 16 ) EVEN otherwise I am minded to accept the contention of advocate for the petitioners that the moment the appeal was decided by the Tribunal (the decision was given on June 8,1988) the first petitioner became entitled get refund of the said sum of Rs. 65,892. " ( 16 ) EVEN otherwise I am minded to accept the contention of advocate for the petitioners that the moment the appeal was decided by the Tribunal (the decision was given on June 8,1988) the first petitioner became entitled get refund of the said sum of Rs. 65,892. 00 and the Central Excise authorities had no power or right to retain the amount with them. ( 17 ) THERE is, however, no reason to examine the aspects connected with applicability of provisions of Section 11b, since for the refund in question they had no manner of application to the case. It is not disputed that understanding the legal position sometime in 2002 the competent authority issued the requisite circular that for dealing with the cases of refund of amounts deposited under Section 35f provisions of Section 11b would not be applicable. ( 18 ) FROM all these facts I have no doubt in my mind that the amount was retained and enjoyed by the Central Excise authorities without any valid justification. They were to refund the amount immediately after June 8,1988; and in any case, immediately after July 27,1988 when the first petitioner asked for the refund. ( 19 ) THE reasons put forward by the respondents for justifying their actions, to my mind, are not valid reasons for withholding the refund. For making the refund no order from the Tribunal or from the adjudicating authority was necessary. The respondents were under an unqualified obligation to refund the amount on their own. Not only that they refused to discharge their such unqualified obligation, they were not also in the mood to consider the repeated requests made by the petitioners for making the refund. I am, therefore, of the view that for the inordinate unjust and unfair delay in making the refund the respondents are liable to pay interest to the petitioners. ( 20 ) THE next question is what should be the rate of interest. By referring to the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court decisions advocate for the petitioners has submitted that in those cases interest was granted at the rate of 12% and 18% per annum respectively. He has, however, very fairly said that grant of interest at the rate of 10% per annum would be just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has, however, very fairly said that grant of interest at the rate of 10% per annum would be just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 21 ) I do not find any force in the submission made by advocate for the respondents that rate of interests was much lower in the year 1998. To my mind the year 1998 has no relevance for the purpose of determining the rate of interest in the present case. The petitioners would be entitled to interest from the year 1988 when the appeal was decided by the Tribunal and they requested the respondents to refund the amount. In my view, interest, if granted at the rate of 10% per annum will be just, fair and proper. ( 22 ) FOR the foregoing reasons I allow this writ petition in part. I order that the respondents shall pay interest to the petitioners at the rate of 10% per annum from July 27, 1988 till April 27, 2000 (when fresh direction was given by the competent authority for presenting the cheque for encashment ). It will be simple interest calculated on the said sum of Rs. 65,892. 00. The interest payable in terms of this judgment and order shall be paid by the respondents to the first petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order by them. ( 23 ) SINCE I have granted interest to the petitioners as claimed, I am not inclined to make any order for costs in their favour. Hence there will be no order for costs in the writ petition.