2002 (9) TMI 618 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application by Revenue regarding Final Order allowing refund to the Respondents.
2. Dismissal of earlier stay application by Tribunal.
3. Prima facie case for staying the operation of the Final Order.
4. Equity and balance of convenience in favor of Revenue for claiming stay.
5. Consideration of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd.
6. Pending reference on the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
7. Decision on whether to stay the operation of the order.

Analysis:

The judgment revolves around the stay application filed by the Revenue concerning the Final Order directing refund to the Respondents. Initially, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's stay application due to a pending reference application before the Delhi High Court. However, the High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the stay application on its merits, leading to a fresh hearing on the matter.

The Revenue argued that the Final Order should be stayed as the pending reference before the High Court could result in significant financial implications if the duty amount is refunded to the assessee before the legal question is resolved. On the contrary, the Respondents contended that the Revenue lacked a prima facie case for a stay, emphasizing the lack of equity and balance of convenience in the Revenue's favor based on previous dismissals of their applications by the Tribunal.

Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted the sequence of events, including the Revenue's unsuccessful attempts through ROM and reference applications to challenge the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Despite the pending question before the High Court, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to grant a stay on the Final Order, especially considering the Apex Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd., which supported the refund of duty to the assessees.

The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's mere pendency of the reference did not justify staying the Final Order. It highlighted that any potential hardship to the Revenue could be addressed through subsequent legal proceedings to seek a refund or interest on the duty amount if the reference decision favored them. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's application for a stay, emphasizing the lack of grounds to halt the operation of the Final Order directing the refund to the Respondents.