Order Delay condoned. Issue notice. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondent appears and takes notice. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Leave granted. 3. Vide judgment dated 14.5.2003 the Tribunal disposed of an appeal, the operative part whereof reads as under, “The Larger Bench has thus divided the period into two parts– (1) cases where refund claim has been filed prior to 1.3.1997 in which situation refund is admissible; (2) cases where refund claim has been filed on or after 1.3.1997 in which situation the refund will not be allowable as Modvat Credit stands lapsed on 1.3.1997. As in the present matter, the refund claims have been submitted much prior to 1.3.1997, they are entitled for the same. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief.” 4. The Revenue filed a special leave petition against the said order which was dismissed by this Court on 6.2.2004. 5. It appears that a grievance was raised before the Tribunal that refund in compliance with the order of the Tribunal which has achieved finality is not being granted. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the Revenue to grant refund of the amount with interest within six weeks from the date of the order. 6. The submission made by the learned Solicitor General appearing for the Revenue is that in the judgment dated 14.5.2003 the Tribunal had adjudicated upon the legal issue only and the factual aspect leading to quantification of amount of refund was not gone into. It is further submitted that there are subsequent orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner whereby the amount has been quantified and the factual aspects relating to entitlement as to refund have been taken care of. Four such orders are dated 3.9.2004 (Annexure-P8 (Colly)). It is further pointed out that the orders dated 3.9.2004 have been put in issue by the respondent by filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and therein the correctness of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner is being examined. Four such orders are dated 3.9.2004 (Annexure-P8 (Colly)). It is further pointed out that the orders dated 3.9.2004 have been put in issue by the respondent by filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and therein the correctness of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner is being examined. The learned Solicitor Gener­al submits that either the Tribunal should have awaited for the deci­sion by the Commissioner (Appeals) or else should have itself examined whether the orders in the matter of quantification, examining the factual aspects, passed by the Assistant Commissioner were correct or not without which a blanket direction for refund could not have been made. 7. We find merit in this submission. Inasmuch as the order of the Tribunal impugned herein does not reflect these factual questions having been gone into by the Tribunal, the impugned order dated 8.9.2004 is set aside. The case is sent back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, as advised, either await the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of quantification of refund or else may itself go into the question and quantify the amount of refund. In the event of the Tribunal arriving at a finding that some amount is due and payable to the respondent by way of refund and the Revenue has unreasonably withheld the refund then the amount may be directed to be refunded with interest, may be compound interest, depending on the opinion formed by the Tribunal. The appeal stands disposed of in the abovesaid terms. 8. Parties through their respective learned counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28th March, 2005. Appeal allowed. **************