Appellate refund orders must be complied with unless stayed; mere disagreement cannot justify withholding implementation.

An appellate refund order must be implemented by the authorities unless its operation has been stayed by a competent superior forum; mere disagreement does not justify withholding compliance. The Tribunal held that the earlier final order had already granted the assessee the notification benefit, refund of duty, and consequential relief, so the Revenue could not re-agitate the issue by refusing implementation. Non-compliance was treated as contrary to judicial discipline, and Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 was invoked to direct departmental authorities to carry out the order within the specified time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue was bound to implement the Tribunal's earlier final order granting refund and whether non-implementation could be justified in the absence of any stay.

Analysis: The earlier final order had already concluded that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification and to refund of duty with consequential relief. The Tribunal held that, unless the operation of that order was stayed by a superior forum, the Revenue could not refuse to act upon it or effectively re-agitate the matter by withholding implementation. Such non-compliance was treated as contrary to judicial discipline. Invoking Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, the Tribunal directed the departmental authorities to carry out the earlier order within a fixed time.

Conclusion: The Revenue was directed to implement the Tribunal's earlier refund order within one week, and the assessee succeeded in the miscellaneous application.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate order granting relief must be implemented by the authorities unless its operation has been stayed by a competent court or forum; mere disagreement with the order does not permit non-compliance.

---