Refund of excess export duty follows once classification is settled and no stay exists on the binding Tribunal ruling.

Refund of excess export duty was held payable where identical goods had already been classified under Chapter Heading 2614 00 20, making the higher levy unsustainable. The Tribunal's classification finding was treated as binding on subordinate authorities, and duty paid under protest had to be returned once the levy was found unlawful. Pendency of the Department's appeal before the Supreme Court did not justify withholding refund in the absence of any stay. The refusal to grant refund was therefore unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of excess export duty paid under protest on the ground that the goods were classifiable under Chapter Heading 2614 00 20 and the higher duty was not leviable.

Analysis: The petitioner had paid export duty at 10% under protest, though the applicable duty on the relevant dates was 5% under Notification No. 15/2013-Cus. and 2.5% under Notification No. 8/2015-Cus. The classification dispute had already been decided by the Tribunal in respect of identical goods, holding that the goods fell under Chapter Heading 2614 00 20 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Court treated that decision as binding on subordinate authorities and held that duty paid under protest must be refunded when the levy is ultimately found unsustainable. The pendency of the Department's appeal before the Supreme Court did not justify withholding refund in the absence of any stay.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund of the excess duty, and the order refusing refund was liable to be quashed.

---