1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Central Excise Appeal No. 142 of 2009 M/s Vikas Testing and Development Lab ..Appellant vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise ..Respondent Mr.H.G.Dharmadhikari for appellant Mr.A.M.Setha with Mr.R.B.Pardeshi for respondent. CORAM: V.C.DAGA AND K.K.TATED JJ 13 th January,2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. He submits that the refund in the sum of Rs.25,000/- became erroneous refund once the order granting refund is reversed by the higher forum as such issuance of show cause notice under under section 11A was necessary. 2 2 The Tribunal did not find favour with the above submission. The very same submission is reiterated before this Court in the present appeal by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents while opposing the aforesaid submission placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex.,Shilong Vs. Woodcraft Products Ltd. (2002(143) E.L.T.247(S.C.) where the Supreme Court has ruled that on the principle of restitution no such notice was necessary. The very same judgment is relied upon by the Tribunal to reject the contention canvassed before it by the appellant. 3 In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Woodcraft Products Ltd. (supra), we do not see any fault with the view taken by the Tribunal. In our considered view no substantial question of law, is involved in the present appeal. Appeal is 3 thus dismissed in limini. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)