ORDER : S.H. Kapadia, Aftab Alam, JJ. No orders on IAs Nos. 7 and 8 in Civil Appeals Nos. 1359 and 1360 of 1980. Leave granted. 2. The short question which arises in these appeals is whether the appellants M/s Southern Asbestos Industries, M/s Sree Balaji Industries and M/s Saritha Industries are entitled to refund under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, consequent upon the judgment of this Court in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 78 ELT 641 in the quantum appeal wherein this Court held that extraction of asbestos was not "manufacture". 3. Before the competent authority the case of the appellant(s) was that since amounts were deposited under protest, Section 11-B was not applicable and in that connection they placed reliance on the judgment in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India, 36 : (1995) 89 ELT 247. The claim was dismissed by the competent authority but allowed by the Commissioner (A), whose decision has been overruled by the Tribunal whose decision stood affirmed by the impugned judgment of the High Court. Hence, this civil appeal(s) is filed by the assessees. It may be noted that according to the Tribunal since the levy of duty was not challenged by the appellant(s) who claims to have taken over the operations from its predecessor, they were not entitled to claim refund. 4. The difficulty has arisen in these cases because before the Tribunal, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that the appellants had taken over the mining operation from erstwhile corporations and therefore they were entitled to take advantage of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. On the basis of this contention the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the appellants herein, being distinct and different entities from the erstwhile corporations had not challenged the levy on the ground of non-excise-ability, they were not entitled to claim refund on the basis of the decision of this Court rendered in appeal in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. This finding of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court vide impugned judgment. When the special leave petitions were filed before this Court, however, in the synopsis the stand taken by the appellant(s) was that the appellants were subsidiaries of Andhra Asbestos Corporation. 5. When the special leave petitions were filed before this Court, however, in the synopsis the stand taken by the appellant(s) was that the appellants were subsidiaries of Andhra Asbestos Corporation. 5. Before us, when the matter came up for admission, we were informed that the appellants are merely contractors and not subsidiaries of Andhra Asbestos Corporation. We, accordingly, directed the petitioners to amend the SLP. When the amendment application was moved the appellants stated that they are sub-contractors. However, when the matters come for final hearing, on the basis of the memorandum of understanding (MoU), the learned counsel has urged that the appellants herein are not sub-contractors but contractors. 6. At the outset we are of the opinion that the utter confusion, for which the appellants alone are responsible, is due to communication gap. Prima facie it appears from the MoU (which does not find place in the order of the Tribunal) and the documents placed before us that the appellants were contractors and they were allowed to be registered by the Department as assessees. They have paid duty under protest for the period for which their claim is made. According to the appellants since the duty was paid under protest, Section 11-B was not applicable. 7. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the Tribunal and we hereby remit the case to the Tribunal to decide the correct status of each of the appellants before us vis-a-vis the erstwhile corporations. Accordingly, liberty is being granted to each of the appellants before us to amend their pleadings, file appropriate documents, if so advised, within six weeks from today. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. All contentions on both sides are expressly kept open. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.