2019 (8) TMI 435 - HC - Customs

Refund claim - time limitation - applicability of amendment of 11.05.2007 prescribing time limit of six months for filling a refund claim - HELD THAT - Mere admission of an appeal would not by itself lead to the stay of the order being appealed against before this Court. The admission of the appeal only indicates that the issue raised in the appeal requires consideration and it does not in any manner reflect finally on the merits of the order of the Tribunal. The issue raised in appeal would require consideration which would be done at the final hearing of the appeal - In the present case, no circumstances have been shown which could justify denying the benefits available to the respondents by virtue of the impugned order of the Tribunal before the impugned order of the Tribunal has been fully considered at the final hearing of the appeal and set aside. Motion dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Stay of order dated 11th December, 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal pending final disposal of appeal in High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appellant, Revenue, filed an appeal in the High Court against the order of the Tribunal dated 11th December, 2017. The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law regarding the justification of the Tribunal in directing a refund despite the amendment prescribing a time limit for filing a refund claim. The Counsel for the appellant requested a stay of the impugned order, arguing that a prima facie case exists in their favor and that not granting a stay would result in the appellant having to pay interest on the delayed payment. The main issue in the appeal was whether the time limit for refund as per the Notification dated 11th May, 2007 would apply to refund applications filed after an order passed before the said date. The Court admitted the appeal for detailed examination at the final hearing, emphasizing that the admission does not reflect final judgment on the merits of the Tribunal's order.

The Court held that the mere admission of an appeal does not automatically lead to a stay of the order being appealed against. Admission of the appeal signifies that the raised issue requires consideration but does not indicate a final decision on the merits of the Tribunal's order. The Court stated that the issue raised in the appeal needs thorough consideration during the final hearing. In this case, no circumstances were presented to justify denying the benefits granted by the Tribunal's order until the order is fully considered at the final hearing of the appeal and potentially set aside. Consequently, the Court dismissed the motion for stay without any order as to costs.