(1.) By an interim order dated 3-1-1994, this Court directed (i) furnishing of Bank guarantee for the amounts in respect of the difference in regard to past dues; (ii) payment of duty for the period subsequent to 1-1-1994 on condition that the said amount shall be kept in a separate bank account in interest-earning deposits; and (iii) if the respondents succeed in the writ petitions, the amount together with interest should be refunded to the respondents. Admittedly the High Court by its judgment dated 26-4-1994* allowed the writs and this Court affirmed that order by its decision dated 21-4-1995. Ordinarily, therefore, under the Court's order dated 3-1-1994 the respondents would be entitled to refund.
(2.) However, the language of this Court 's order dated 21-4-1995 is relied upon to deny the refund since it said:(Para 15)
(3.) We see no merit in the objection raised. We consider it to be frivolous. The submission that the refund must be refused because it would amount to 'unjust enrichment' cannot be countenanced since this Court's order dated 3-1-1994 in no uncertain words provided that on the respondents succeeding in the writ petitions, they shall, without any other condition or stipulation, be granted refund together with accrued interest. By our order of 11-8-1995, we secured the amount by directing Mahanadi to deposit the amount in this Court subject to their contentions. Accordingly the amount of Rs. 49,22,68,098.89 came to be deposited on 31-8-1995.