Tribunal orders refund to respondent, later appeal found in favor, leading to already processed refund.

The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to refund the claimed amount to the respondent within three weeks. However, subsequent legal proceedings revealed a fresh order in favor of the Revenue. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal in favor of the respondent- assessee, as the refund had already been sanctioned by the Department in compliance with the Tribunal's fresh order. The court disposed of the appeal as it had become infructuous due to the subsequent legal proceedings and the refund already being processed by the Department.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned Final Order dated 30.08.2018 is perverse, arbitrary, and illegalRs.
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in relying on a judgment by the High Court of DelhiRs.
3. Is the assessee entitled to a refund of duty deposited during adjudication proceedingsRs.
4. Whether the impugned order is against the settled position of lawRs.
5. Whether the impugned order is based on surmises and conjecturesRs.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a manufacturing company engaged in producing Pan Masala, Khaini, Gutka etc. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) found suppression of production and clandestine removal of products during a search in 2007. A Show Cause Notice was issued in 2009, leading to a demand of Rs. 13,41,65,685. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed this demand in 2011.
2. The respondent filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, which remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in 2016. Subsequently, the respondent sought a refund of Rs. 8,15,34,612 deposited during search proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority rejected the refund application.
3. The Tribunal, in its order dated 30.08.2018, directed the Adjudicating Authority to refund the claimed amount within three weeks. However, during the hearing, it was revealed that a fresh order in favor of the Revenue was passed in 2019. The Tribunal then allowed the appeal in favor of the respondent- assessee.
4. The respondent claimed that the refund had already been sanctioned by the Department in compliance with the Tribunal's fresh order. The appellant's counsel mentioned the department's intention to appeal the Tribunal's 2019 order but acknowledged that nothing further remained in the present appeal.
5. Considering the developments, the court disposed of the appeal as it had become infructuous due to the subsequent legal proceedings and the refund already being processed by the Department.

---