9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laneous order No. 23/91-D dated 17th January, 1991 the Bench had given one month s time to obtain information from the Collector whether any appeal has been filed and if so whether any stay has been granted or not. Thereafter, the matter had come up for hearing on 20th February, 1991 and the matter was adjourned for today. Shri Jain argued that the mere fact that the revenue has filed an appeal before a higher forum cannot justify the withholding of the refund unless a stay has been granted by the higher forum. In support of his argument, he has referred to the following judgments :- (1) (1990) 79 STC 38 (Madras High Court) Senthil Raja Metal v. Commercial Tax Officer, South Avani Moola Street, Circle, Madurai. (2) 1986 (25) E.L.T. 488 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d others reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 488 (Allahabad) had held that mere filing of appeal and stay petition does not entitle the Department to refuse the amount of refund unless stay order is obtained. Para No. 4 from the said judgment is reproduced below : - 4. In view of the fact that mere filing of an appeal does not result in staying the proceedings, it did not entitle the respondent to refuse to refund the amount which it was bound to do on account of the allowing of the appeal on 28th June, 1984. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the contention of the counsel appearing for the respondents. Till a stay order was obtained by the respondents, mere filing of the appeal before the Tribunal did not result in granting an automatic stay o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this case. Hence a mandamus would issue to the respondent to implement the order of the Tribunal dated 1st October, 1985, in M.T.A. No. 382 of 1985." Punjab and Haryana High Court had also the occasion to deal with similar situation in the case of Ram Singh Jaspal Singh v. State of Haryana and another reported in (1990) 79 STC 292. 5. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that in the absence of any stay order passed by the Supreme Court, there is no justification for the withholding of the refund. We order the respondent Collector viz. Collector of Customs, Madras and Collector of Customs, Coimbatore to implement the common order passed by the Tribunal on or before 21st March, 1991 and send report of the compliance to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
