As per case facts, M/s Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) challenged Railways' collection of both siding and through distance charges, arguing it was an illegal duplication. Railways initially clarified this discrepancy, ... leading NRL to seek a refund of the overcharged amount. Railways then rejected this claim, arguing NRL's notice was time-barred under the relevant Act. The Railway Claims Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed NRL's refund claim, prompting Railways' appeal (MFA 142/2019), asserting lack of jurisdiction and legality of charges. NRL also filed a cross-appeal (MFA 82/2019) for higher interest. The question arose whether the charges were an 'overcharge' necessitating statutory notice or an 'illegal charge' for which such notice was not required, and if the Tribunal's delay condonation and interest award were correct. Finally, the High Court dismissed Railways' appeal, ruling that the charges were not 'overcharges' under the Act, thus no statutory notice was required, and Railways could not retract its prior admissions. The High Court also dismissed NRL's cross-appeal for enhanced interest, confirming the Tribunal's discretionary award of interest as lawful.