Pre-deposit refund cannot be treated as premature merely because the main matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

Refund of a pre-deposit made under a Tribunal stay order cannot be refused as premature merely because the main appeal has been remanded for de novo adjudication. The claim is distinct from any routine refund arising out of the underlying dispute and must be examined under the governing precedent cited by the Tribunal. As the remand did not by itself defeat entitlement to consideration of the pre-deposit refund, the adjudicating authority was required to pass an appropriate order on that claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of the amount pre-deposited pursuant to the stay order could be denied as premature merely because the main matter had been remanded for de novo adjudication.

Analysis: The amount claimed was not a routine refund arising from the remanded dispute, but the return of a pre-deposit made in compliance with the Tribunal's stay order. The mere fact that the appeal had been remanded did not justify rejection of the refund claim as premature. The claim was required to be examined in the light of the governing precedent referred to by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected as premature and the adjudicating authority was directed to pass an appropriate order on the refund of the pre-deposited amount.

---