Refund of pre-deposit cannot be withheld when no stay exists and departmental circulars require implementation of the appellate order.

Refund of a pre-deposit was held to be due where the Tribunal's earlier order had not been stayed by the Supreme Court, even though the Revenue's appeal was pending. The analysis states that the earlier order remained operative until set aside, and that Board circulars required return of pre-deposits within the prescribed period after a final appellate order unless stayed by a superior court. Because departmental circulars are binding on the authorities, the refund could not be withheld merely on account of a pending appeal. The earlier Tribunal order was therefore to be implemented in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of the amount deposited during proceedings was required to be granted and the Tribunal's earlier order implemented in the absence of any stay from the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that its earlier order had attained finality for the time being, that the Revenue's appeal before the Supreme Court was pending, and that no stay had been granted against operation of the earlier order. It further relied on the Board's circulars directing return of pre-deposits within the prescribed period after a final appellate order unless stayed by a superior court. In view of the settled position that departmental circulars bind the authorities, the absence of stay meant the refund could not be withheld merely because an appeal was pending.

Conclusion: Refund of the pre-deposit was directed to be granted by implementing the earlier Tribunal order within the time specified, in favour of the assessee.

---