Court orders prompt refund of service tax to appellant, emphasizes importance of compliance with appellate order. Increased interest rate awarded.

The court ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the respondent to promptly refund the service tax despite multiple challenges and legal proceedings. The judgment highlighted the failure to implement the refund order following the rejection of the stay application, emphasizing the necessity of refunding the service tax to the petitioner. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of interest on the service tax refund, directing an increased rate of interest based on the circumstances of the case. The court underscored the importance of adhering to the appellate order for refund and ultimately sided with the appellant in ensuring the timely refund of the service tax.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refusal to refund service tax despite competent authority's direction.
2. Dispute over liability for service tax payment by a non-resident person.
3. Challenge to the order directing credit to Consumer Welfare Fund.
4. Rejection of stay application for refund.
5. Appeal against the order for interest on service tax refund.
6. Contention regarding pending appeal and refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the unusual scenario where the respondent failed to refund service tax despite a directive from the competent authority. The stay application filed by the respondent challenging the refund order was dismissed, yet the refund was not processed, leading to the appellant filing a writ petition seeking the refund.

2. The main issue revolved around the liability of the petitioner for service tax payment for a specific period as a non-resident person had already paid the tax. After a prolonged legal battle, the appellate authorities directed the refund of the service tax to the petitioner, which was further contested by the respondent, leading to multiple appeals and applications.

3. A significant aspect of the case was the direction to credit the refunded amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund instead of directly paying it to the assessee to prevent undue enrichment. This decision was challenged by the appellant, leading to further legal proceedings and appeals.

4. Despite the Tribunal rejecting the respondent's stay application, the service tax remained unreimbursed, prompting the appellant to seek judicial intervention through a writ petition. The High Court, in its judgment, highlighted the failure to implement the appellate order for refund despite the finality of the rejection of the stay application.

5. The appeal also touched upon the issue of interest on the service tax refund, with the court directing an increased rate of interest based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The court acknowledged the validity of the interest rate determined in the previous judgment but emphasized the need for the refund of the service tax to the petitioner.

6. Lastly, the court analyzed the respondent's contention regarding the pending appeal and the potential impact of refunding the service tax on the ongoing legal proceedings. The court scrutinized the actions of the respondent, emphasizing that the rejection of the stay application implied the necessity to implement the refund order, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and directing the respondent to refund the service tax promptly.

---