Binding tribunal directions on refund cannot be reopened by the department; unjust enrichment inquiry was impermissible here.

A departmental authority must comply with binding Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) directions when no stay has been obtained from the High Court; it cannot reopen the issue of unjust enrichment or sit in judgment over those earlier orders. The text states that the Assistant Commissioner's attempt to re-examine the refund claim and retain the amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund was impermissible, and that compliance could be enforced in proceedings under Rule 41 read with Rule 40 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules to secure justice. The order was set aside and implementation of the earlier direction was required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner could ignore the Tribunal's and Commissioner (Appeals)'s directions, reopen the question of unjust enrichment, and reject the refund claim instead of implementing the earlier order.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that when its final order and the appellate order had directed the departmental authority to take specified action and no stay had been obtained from the High Court, the authority was bound to carry out those directions. It found that the Assistant Commissioner, instead of implementing the binding directions, conducted an impermissible enquiry into unjust enrichment, sat in judgment over the Tribunal's order, and retained the refund in the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Tribunal held that such conduct could be corrected in the present proceedings under Rule 41 read with Rule 40 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules to secure compliance and the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner's order dated 22-3-2007 was set aside and he was directed to implement the Tribunal's earlier order within seven days.

---