Appeal without stay does not suspend a final tribunal refund order; the operative order remains enforceable.

Mere filing or admission of an appeal does not suspend the operative effect of a final tribunal order in the absence of a stay. The Tribunal applied Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to secure implementation of its earlier refund order, noting that Revenue had produced no stay from the High Court. It therefore held that the prior order remained enforceable and directed Revenue to comply and report implementation within four weeks.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's earlier order allowing the importer's appeal and granting refund was required to be implemented despite the Revenue having filed an appeal before the High Court without any stay order.

Analysis: The application was moved under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to secure implementation of the Tribunal's final order. The only circumstance relied upon by the Revenue was the filing and admission of an appeal and writ petition before the High Court. No order of stay from the High Court had been produced. In the absence of any stay, mere pendency or admission of the Revenue's appeal could not justify non-implementation of the Tribunal's final order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that its earlier order had to be implemented and directed the Revenue to comply and report implementation within four weeks. The application was allowed in favour of the importer.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal enforced its prior refund order and rejected the Revenue's non-compliance stance, holding that an admitted appeal without stay does not suspend the operative effect of the Tribunal's order.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere filing or admission of an appeal does not suspend or nullify an operative final order in the absence of a stay, and such order remains enforceable.

---