1. That the Respondents should release the refunds of reduced ELF amount of Rs. 1,32,61,689/- to the Appellants Licensee, refund in pursuance of the Order dated 09-01-2015 passed by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. Since the said order has been passed for the release of the refunds, the delay on the part of the Respondents to grant the same is inappropriate and without just and reasonable cause. Therefore, the aforesaid Respondents are oblivious of unmerited economic hardships being suffered by the Appellants Licensee. Since the said Order for the release of refunds has been duly passed by the Excise & Taxation Department, the inordinate delay on the part of the Respondents is not warranted as just and reasonable by law per se.

2. That the Appellants are perplexed in comprehending the factual rational reason behind the inordinate delay in releasing the impugned refund amount when it has been duly ordered after due consideration by the Honble Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Ferozepur in compliance to the report submitted by the Committee which is mutatis mutandis i.e. favouring the Appellants.

3. That the said Respondents by the non-compliance of the aforementioned Order for the release of the refunds have hereby entitled the Appellants to demand the adequate interest against the aforesaid amount of 1,32,61,689/- from the Respondents thereof.

4. That the conduct of the Respondents in the instant case is not just, fair and reasonable being arbitrary and evasive, thus being contra jus as though the orders has been passed yet it has not been complied with by the aforesaid Respondents by delaying it inordinately. The Honble Supreme Court has duly settled the principle of justness, fairness and reasonability of the procedure established by law in the landmark pronouncement of decision of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 AIR 597: 1978 SCR (2) 621: 1978 (1) SCC 248 (para 48). Thus, when the order for the refund has been duly passed by the competent and appropriate authority, arguendo the non-compliance by the Respondents is arbitrary and fanciful per se.

5. That when the afore stated order pronounced by the Honble Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Ferozepur in favour of the Appellants is treated as final then the inordinate delay in the execution of the same is inexplicable and beyond reasonable comprehension. The object of the finality of the order, i.e. its execution of it, is itself hereby defeated by the non-compliance by the said Respondents. The meaning of the word final has to be considered in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. Thus order which determines the principle matter in question is termed as final. [Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State Of Gujarat, 1968 AIR 733: 1968 SCR (2) 685 (para 4)].

6. The assessment order made by the assessing authority does not become final merely because no appeal has been filed against it. It remains final only so long as it is not revised. Once it is revised it loses its finality and the order passed in revision takes its place which order may be termed as final. [Hari Chand Rattan Chand & Co. v. The Deputy Excise & Taxation, AIR 1970 P H 206: 1969 24 STC 258 P H (para 7)]. It was rightly must held by the Honble Supreme Court that at the stage when the Commissioner interfered with the assessment order in revision he interfered with a final order of assessment and the order was none the less final. [Shri Om Parkash Seth v. The Assessing Authority, 1964 15 STC 530 P H (para 13)]Therefore, in the instant matter, the order passed after the matter was remanded to the Deputy Excise and Tax Commissioner is the final Order.

7. The non-execution of the order by the Respondents has made the concept of finality of order and its execution infructurous. If order is not to be complied with then there is no purpose of making any such order. Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose, they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. [Martin Luther King, Jr.]

8. That due consideration must be given to the decision of nine Judge-Bench of the Honble Supreme Court which suggests that if the duty has been collected contrary to law, i.e., on account of a misinterpretation or misconstruction of a provision of law, rule, notification or regulation and the assessment order has attained finality, then the assessee is entitled to claim refund on account of subsequent discovery of such mistake. [Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 (para 79)]

9. Wherefore, the mistake in the instant case has been rectified and refund orders has been duly issued, then the reason behind the non-compliance of the order by the Respondents is well known by the Respondents itself thereto.

10. The Appellants hereby, most humbly and respectfully pleads before the Honble Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Punjab that the said order requiring the refund to the said Appellants must be duly complied with, by the aforesaid Respondents as expeditiously as possible.