1992 (8) TMI 77 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of duty under Notification No. 71/78 dated 1-3-1978.
2. Implementation of orders passed by Appellate Collector and Tribunal.
3. Lack of information regarding appeal to the Supreme Court.
4. Contention regarding stay of tax realization pending appeal.
5. Applicability of order pending appeal.
6. Precedent from the Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a show cause notice issued to M/s. Sadhana Ausadhalaya regarding payment under Notification No. 71/78 dated 1-3-1978 as per the Central Excise Act. The Assistant Collector held the petitioner liable to pay duty, but the Appellate Collector allowed the appeal, directing a refund of the duty demanded. Another appeal against a similar order was also mentioned in the judgment.

2. The Excise Department's appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal was dismissed, but the orders to refund the amount collected were not implemented by the respondents. The petitioner highlighted the lack of information regarding an appeal to the Supreme Court, while the respondents claimed to have filed a Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) and a stay application.

3. The court noted that the Supreme Court had not granted any stay, emphasizing that the mere filing of an appeal does not automatically stay the operation of an order. The respondents' conduct in not providing details of the Supreme Court proceedings was criticized, and the court rejected the contention that no refund should be granted until the appeal was finally disposed of by the highest court.

4. Referring to a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, the judgment agreed that filing an appeal in the Supreme Court does not prevent the effectiveness of the order under appeal. The court held in favor of the petitioner, directing the payment of the refunded amount within four weeks with an additional interest rate of 10 percent from the date of the Appellate Collector's order.

5. The court did not award costs and instructed the department to provide a xerox copy of the order to the advocates appearing for the parties, with the option to obtain a certified copy.