1. Customs Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Customs House, 33, Rajaji Salai Chennai 600 001 2. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) Department of Revenue Customs House, 33, Rajaji Salai Chennai 600 001 ..Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to refund the customs duty pursuant to the final order dated 2 March 2016 passed by the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Swaroop For Respondents : Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda O R D E R The petitioner seeks for mandamus directing the second respondent to refund customs duty pursuant to the final order dated 02.03.2016 passed by the CESTAT, Chennai. 2.The case of the petitioner in short, is as follows: The petitioner is a Government of Karnataka undertaking engaged in the business of power generation for the State of Karnataka. The petitioner has a Hydro Electric Generator power plant at Sharavathi. For the said power plant, certain parts viz., epoxy stator coil were imported through Bills of Entry dated 25.08.1994 and 27.08.1994. The Customs authorities assessed the customs duty payable to such item under tariff 8544.11 under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The petitioner paid the customs duty for clearing the goods. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a claim for reassessment of the goods under Tariff item 8503 and refund of excess amount paid by the petitioner, through application dated 27.08.1994. The said request was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The said order was upheld by the CESTAT vide its final order dated 25.04.2000. The petitioner challenged the said order of the CESTAT before the Apex Court, which in turn, through order dated 09.04.2002, set aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner to decide the original application dated 27.08.1994. The Assistant Commissioner reconsidered the application and found that the goods were rightly classified under tariff 8544. Thus, the said authority rejected the claim of the petitioner once again. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority also was rejected. However, further appeal filed before the CESTAT ended in favour of the petitioner on 02.03.2016. The CESTAT found that the goods imported under the Bills of entries are epoxy stator coils classifiable under 8503 not under 8544. The CESTAT also observed that the Authorities will settle the legitimate refund claim of the petitioner on receipt of the said order. However, till this date, the refund claim of the petitioner has not been considered. Thus, the present writ petition. 3.A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents wherein it is stated as follows: The petitioner imported goods described as epoxy coils during the year 1990 and the same were originally assessed under Customs Tariff Heading 8544.11 and the duty was paid accordingly without any protest. Later on, the petitioner claimed the refund of differential amount by claiming the classification of item under Custom Tariff Heading 8501.64/9801. The said request was rejected. The CESTAT vide order dated 02.03.2016, held that the epoxy coils classified under 8544 are appropriately classifiable under 8503. In pursuant to the above order of the CESTAT, the petitioner was issued with notice dated 05.04.2017, calling for the documents mentioned therein followed by two other notices dated 24.04.2017 and 08.05.2017. Another notice was also issued on 26.02.2018, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file its explanation in respect of discrepancy. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no justification on the part of the respondents in not refunding the excess duty paid by the petitioner, even after clear cut finding given by the CESTAT in its order dated 02.03.2016, accepting the classification of the imported goods under 8503. He further submitted that the petitioner's claim is based on Notification 172/89Customs dated 29.05.1989. He also produced copy of the said notification for the perusal of this Court. 5.Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was already issued with notice on several occasions in pursuant to the order passed by the CESTAT to come and clarify as to the relevant notification, under which the petitioner ma