Binding appellate orders must be followed despite pending revenue appeals when no stay has been granted.

Subordinate revenue authorities must give effect to a binding appellate order unless its operation has been stayed by a competent court. Pending revenue proceedings before the Tribunal do not justify withholding consequential relief or refusing to process a refund claim. On the facts, the appellate authority had already ruled that the reach stackers were not vehicles and qualified for the customs exemption under Notification No. 92/2004-Cus., so the petitioner was entitled to have the refund application processed and to receive the benefit of that appellate decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to have its refund application processed and the benefit of the appellate order given effect to despite the pendency of the revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The appellate authority had already accepted that the impugned reach stackers were not vehicles and were eligible for the customs exemption under Notification No. 92/2004-Cus. The revenue's stay application had been rejected by the Tribunal, and the subordinate customs authority could not decline to act on the appellate order merely because the revenue's appeal remained pending. The principle of judicial discipline requires authorities below the appellate forum to give effect to binding appellate decisions unless stayed by a competent court.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to processing of the refund application and to the benefit of the appellate order.

Ratio Decidendi: Subordinate revenue authorities must unreservedly follow binding appellate orders unless their operation has been stayed by a competent court, and pendency of a departmental appeal is no ground to withhold consequential relief.

---