ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. The applicant, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the activity of exploration and development / production of hydrocarbons, i.e. oil and gas, at different places throughout the country. 2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present application for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act are as follows:- For exploration of hydrocarbons, the applicant had entered into a contract with M/s. Techno Exports, Moscow on 04.12.1986 for conducting seismic survey in North Cambay and Cambay Basins. The Contractor had imported equipments for the said work in 16 different consignments, 5 of which were received in October 1986 and the remaining 11 were received in February-March 1987. The goods under the 16 consignments were provisionally cleared against ITC Bonds and the customs duty was paid on merit rates. The Essentiality Certificate regarding payment of customs duty was issued and based upon it, the applicant had claimed refund of the excess amount of duty. Various rounds of litigation eventually led to preferring an appeal being Appeal No.570/2013 whereby, the Commissioner, Customs Department directed finalization of all the 16 Bills of Entry vide order dated 21.08.2013. The said order had attained finality as it had remained unchallenged. Despite the above order, the Customs authority did not finalize the refund and continued to demand documents till 23.01.2017 when a final assessment order on the Bills of Entries came to be passed. However, the refund claim was not processed. The applicant, therefore, filed the captioned petition claiming refund of Rs.5,51,82,641.08 along with interest thereon. Pending the petition, on 21.11.2019, various information had been sought for and the matter was posted on 02.12.2019. 2.1 It is the say of the applicant that on 29.11.2019, the amount of refund was directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, “the Act”) but the claim for interest was rejected. This, according to the applicant, was without any valid or legal basis. In the pending petition, after making an amendment, challenge was made to the said order also and eventually, the Court allowed the petition by issuing certain directions vide order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.19096 of 2018. This, according to the applicant, was without any valid or legal basis. In the pending petition, after making an amendment, challenge was made to the said order also and eventually, the Court allowed the petition by issuing certain directions vide order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.19096 of 2018. 2.2 In the present application, the applicant has raised the grievance that a bare perusal of the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by this Court would indicate that this Court had not only not set aside the order directing credit of the refund amount but grant of refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund, it, had also remanded the matter to the authority for taking appropriate decision on the aspect of payment of interest on the refund amount. 2.3 It is the say of the applicant that the respondent had fixed the hearing on the interest aspect through the medium of Video Conference and the arguments were also heard on the said aspect. However, to the shock of the applicant, in a deliberate and willful disobedience, the respondent authority re-examined the aspect of enrichment and directed the amount of refund to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 27(2) of the Act by order dated 04.11.2020. According to the applicant, the order dated 04.11.2020 exhibits a scant regard for the order passed by this Court dated 20.02.2020 and therefore, it has to be construed as a willful and deliberate contempt. It is emphatically urged that the respondent authority had set aside the order dated 29.11.2019 directing credit of the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund, which is indicative of the fact that the applicant was entitled to refund and that the aspect of interest was to be examined, which the said authority has misconstrued and therefore, for this willful disobedience, the present application is preferred under the Contempt of Courts Act with the following prayers:- “(A) The Honourable Court may be pleased to hold the respondent guilty of willful and deliberate contempt of the directions contained in the order dated 20.02.2020 in Special Civil Application No.19096 of 2018 and be further pleased to punish the Respondent appropriately for the same. (B) The Honourable Court may further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the Respondent in willful and deliberate breach of the Honourable Court's order and be further pleased to direct refund of the duty along with appropriate interest to the petitioner. (C) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed appropriate. (D) Order exemplary costs of the present petition.” 3. This Court had issued Notice on 22.01.2021. On behalf of the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) has filed affidavit-inreply tendering unconditional apology for any unintended mistake, error or inadvertence on the part of the respondent authority. According to him, the respondent puts the majesty of the Court at the highest pedestal and there was no intention to misinterpret the order. What has been construed is that the respondent has been directed to decide the issue afresh and under that obligation and understanding, the claim of the applicant has been decided, after affording the opportunity of representation and personal hearing. It is stated that as per the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by this Court, in the last paragraph, it has been directed that - “and decided to make the payment of refund with proper interest under law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of the Court”. Accordingly, the respondent authority has granted opportunity of personal hearing as well as representation to the applicant and thereafter, the issue of refund was decided and therefore, there is no question of showing any disrespect. 3.1 As per the say of the respondent, refund is the availment of benefit of Customs Duty exemption provided under Notification No.515/86-Cus. Dated 30.12.1986, as amended, subject to submission of Essentiality Certificate issued by the Oil Industry Development Board before the jurisdictional Customs authority and not on the re-export of the subjected imported goods, on which the refund of Customs Duty has been claimed. It is explained that the applicant's contention that since the goods were reexported and therefore, they are not required to fulfill the bar of unjust enrichment, at the time of seeking refund from the Department, is not correct, as this is not a case where the goods were imported duty free for the purpose of re-export as both are independent issues. The excess duty refund claimed by the applicant is for Rs.5,41,82,641/- and not for the “full duty” of Rs.6,78,94,271/-, which was paid at the time of import. 3.2 It is the further say of the respondent that this Court in paragraph- 13 of the order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.19096 of 2018 has not ordered any refund, as has been claimed by the applicant; instead, this Court has directed the respondent authority to reconsider the same by way of remand. Thus, both the issues of refund and interest were ordered to be considered by this Court. Accordingly, based on the material already submitted by the applicant and after giving opportunity to the applicant to produce any other material, this Court had remanded the matter to the authority for considering the matter afresh. Hence, the order passed by the respondent authority is a fresh order, based on the documents available on record. 3.3 By relying on the observations made by this Court in the order dated 20.02.2021, it was pointed out that the respondent authority was silent in its order on the contentions raised by the applicant. However, the Court has not granted any consequential relief and has, in fact, directed the authority to decide both the aspects of refund and interest, after taking into consideration the material available on record. 3.4 It is further the say of the respondent that the applicant had entered into a contract with M/s. Techno Exports, Moscow and had continued its business for three years and after a long gap, the applicant had applied for concessional rate of duty under the exemption Notifications. The Contractor had imported the goods, however, the duty exemption was claimed by the applicant. Therefore, unjust enrichment was mandatory, even when the goods were exported as per the provisions of law. Hence, the amount, if any, received from the Customs Department was required to be shown in the Balance Sheet as “receivables” with the certification that no credit / benefits such as CENVAT, VAT, MODVAT, Sales Tax or any other scheme relevant at that time, had been claimed. It is not known whether any such benefit had been availed by the applicant during that period or not. It is not known whether any such benefit had been availed by the applicant during that period or not. According to the stand of the respondent, even though the goods were re-exported, the amount must fall in the category of “receivable” in the Balance Sheet, otherwise, as per Section 28D of the Act, by default, it would be assumed that the duty has been “passed on”. It is urged that under Section 28D of the Act, which provides for presumption, the applicant is deemed to have passed on the full incidence of such duty to the buyer of such goods. Hence, even in case of re-exports and in the absence of any buyer, the amount paid as duty must reflect in the Balance Sheet as “receivables”. It is stated that relevant documents were never provided by the applicant and therefore, on invocation of the “default option”, it was assumed that the full incidence of duty was passed on to the buyer of such goods. 3.5 It is further the say of the respondent that the refund was ultimately generated vide order-in-assessment dated 23.01.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Custom House, Kandla, which mentioned that subsequent to the final order of assessment, the importer will be required to file refund claim under Section 27 of the Act within the specified period. This order-in-assessment was accepted by the Department as well as by the applicant, as no appeal was preferred against the said order. The refund was generated subject to fulfillment of “unjust enrichment”. By going into the details of various provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 27, 28C and 28D, it is the say of the respondent that a contract was entered into with a Company based in Moscow and that duty was paid provisionally during 1986-87 and therefore, the aforesaid provisions of the Act would be attracted. The refund application dated 16.08.2017 was not finalized at the request of the applicant for locating the documents and even at the time of personal hearing, further time was sought for. The refund application dated 16.08.2017 was not finalized at the request of the applicant for locating the documents and even at the time of personal hearing, further time was sought for. The refund application was preferred on 16.08.2017 and as per the order-inassessment dated 23.01.2017, the Department vide communications dated 21.11.2017 and 16.07.2018 had asked the applicant to submit documentary evidence establishing that it had not passed on or recovered the incidence of Customs duty, for which refund was being claimed from the buyers or any other persons and the same is borne by the applicant. As the aspect of unjust enrichment was not yet cleared, it is reiteratively emphasized that because of the adjournments sought for by the applicant for furnishing documents, time was granted by the Department. 3.6 It is the further say of the respondent that the authority had passed a reasoned order within the stipulated period on 29.11.2019. In the said order dated 29.11.2019, the refund claim of the applicant was allowed and the excess duty of Rs.5,41,82,641/- was ordered to be credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund, as provided under Section 27(2) of the Act, since the applicant had failed to justify the unjust enrichment and the interest portion of Rs.17,03,05,689.63/- had not been approved. It is, thus, emphasized that the order of this Court was for deciding both the aspects of refund as well as interest and the same had to be decided on the basis of the material available on record and by affording opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant. There has been due compliance of the entire order and hence, there is no justification to entertain this application. 4. This Court has heard at length learned advocate Mr. A.R. Mehta for the applicant and learned ASG Mr. Devang Vyas for the opponent. Along the line of their respective pleadings, they have argued the matter. One of the contentions raised by the learned ASG is with regard to the requirement of entertaining this application for contempt, when other avenues are already open to the applicant for challenging the order impugned. He has emphatically urged that the recourse of contempt jurisdiction is not available to the applicant in the wake of availability of other statutory remedy where all the issues can be raised and decided. 5. He has emphatically urged that the recourse of contempt jurisdiction is not available to the applicant in the wake of availability of other statutory remedy where all the issues can be raised and decided. 5. Before adverting to the aspect of contempt, the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 19096 of 2018 dated 20.02.2020 needs to be recorded. We notice that the Court has extracted the observations from the order-in-original dated 29.11.2019, which was impugned in the petition. The Court held and observed that “the process involved in processing the refund casts serious duty upon the concerned officer to advert to the facts pleaded before the authority for coming to the conclusion that though refund is payable but the same is required to be deposited and paid in the Consumer Welfare Fund for want of any document or other evidence to indicate that the payment of refund would not result into unjust enrichment to the recipient”. The Court found complete silence in the order impugned qua the contention of the applicant and accordingly, held that on the face of it, the order impugned indicated that the machinery in question, on which duty was paid and duty was sought to be claimed as refund, was not in any manner capable of being dealt with or for passing on, so as to pass on the burden of duty to the consumer or end-user. This was held as it was found that there was no end-user or consumer in the instant case. This contention of the applicant, according to the Court, was not dealt with by the authority and therefore, it held and observed that “the authorities in uncanny avoidance to deal with this aspect has rendered the order vitiated and therefore, the decision of the authority qua depositing the amount into the consumer fund is required to be deprecated, quashed and set aside”. Vital would be to refer to para-13 of the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by this Court in the captioned petition at this stage, which reads thus:- “13. The question at this stage now arises is as to whether this Court should order refund along with interest or afford an opportunity to the authority for deciding the same. Vital would be to refer to para-13 of the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by this Court in the captioned petition at this stage, which reads thus:- “13. The question at this stage now arises is as to whether this Court should order refund along with interest or afford an opportunity to the authority for deciding the same. We are of the view that the authority may be called upon to decide the aspect of payment of refund along with interest without further insisting upon any other material and based upon the material which has already been submitted and giving liberty to the petitioner to produce any material, if they so choose, and decide to make payment of refund with appropriate interest admissible under law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of the Court. With this observation, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. ” 6. It is quite clear from the observations made in paragraph-13 that the Court had directed the respondent authority to decide the aspect of payment of refund along with interest. The Court took care of the fact that the authority should not insist upon any other material and should decide the matter on the basis of the material which is already with it and if the petitioner is desirous of adding additional material after affording the opportunity to the applicant to produce any material on record, it would decide both the aspects, of refund and interest. Decision of the issue regarding refund with appropriate interest was to be determined within 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of the order. It is more than clear from the order itself that the Court had directed the authority to decide both the aspects of refund and interest and not the issue of interest alone. The Court was quite annoyed by the fact that the contention raised by the applicant in relation to the duty paid on the machinery, which was sought to be claimed as refund, was not addressed since the contention of the applicant was all along that there was no consumer or end user and therefore, in no manner, goods were capable of being dealt with or passed on, so as to pass on the burden of duty to the consumer or the enduser. This being a vital aspect and as there was complete silence in answering this vital issue, the Court directed the authority to decide this issue which would have a bearing on the issue of refund given to the consumer welfare fund and interest. Thus, both the aspects of refund and interest, after affording opportunity to the applicant were to be concluded instead of ordering consideration of the aspect of interest alone. 7. We could notice from the affidavit-in-reply and the submissions of the learned ASG that the respondent authority has chosen to base its order not only on the material which was not available on record but also on the material made available later, on affording sufficient opportunity to the applicant for submitting the documents. The respondent authority passed a fresh order based on the material, which was already available on record and after affording opportunity of production and hearing to the applicant and after considering the entire material available on record. The order passed by the respondent authority is a speaking order. We notice that presently, we are dealing with not an order in appeal but it is a matter under the contempt jurisdiction. What has been alleged is that there has been a deliberate misinterpretation of the order of the Court. 8. On a plain reading of the order and the directions of this Court, we find that the act, alleged to be willful and in complete defiance of the Courts directions, is an act which based on the interpretation of the order and on law and the same cannot be said to be in willful disobedience of the order of this Court. The jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act is not to be invoked unless the Court finds that the act on the part of the authority is deliberate and in willful disobedience of the order of this Court. Unless a real and serious prejudice is shown, which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice, this jurisdiction would not be available. 9. Unless a real and serious prejudice is shown, which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice, this jurisdiction would not be available. 9. We notice from the order which is impugned in the instant case addresses the contention of the applicant, which, according to the Court, had not been dealt with in the previous order and if the same has also been addressed by giving cogent reasons, what all the applicant is expected to do is to question the outcome before the appellate authority or by way of appropriate legal challenge. 10.The Court while passing the earlier order could have remanded the matter for the purpose of interest alone, however, it has chosen not to so do it and instead has asked the authority to decide “the aspect of payment of refund along with interest” without insisting for any additional material and hence, the conclusion if is not as contemplated by the applicant, the authority concerned surely and definitely cannot be said to have acted either contrary to the law or in breach of directions of the Court while addressing both the aspects of refund and interest. The opponent authority committed no disobedience in determining these two, as it could not have done it otherwise. Its non-grant of refund to the applicant and instead to the Consumer Welfare Fund and denial of interest are not the realms which need to be gone into in this application for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act. 11.We shall chose not to enter into the merits of the matter although both the sides have stressed upon the factual matrix. We would leave it open to the parties to approach the appropriate forum for raising all those contentions and the authority concerned shall adjudicate upon it without being influenced by the disposal of this petition. 12.The application is, accordingly, dismissed.