Refund of pre-deposit and protest duty permitted where classification order was unstayed, subject to undertaking pending Supreme Court appeal.

A petitioner was entitled to refund of the pre-deposit amount because its refundability was not disputed, and the Court directed immediate return of that sum. As to the additional duty paid under protest, the Tribunal's classification order in the petitioner's favour had not been stayed by the Supreme Court, so the Department could not retain the amount while the assessment remained unresolved. Refund of that amount was permitted on the petitioner filing an undertaking to abide by the Supreme Court's eventual decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the pre-deposit amount and the additional duty amount despite the pendency of the Department's appeal before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The petitioner had deposited one amount as pre-deposit during investigation and another amount as additional duty under protest for clearance of goods. The respondents did not dispute the refundability of the pre-deposit amount. As regards the additional duty amount, the Court noted that the Tribunal's order classifying the goods in the petitioner's favour had not been stayed by the Supreme Court, and the Department could not continue to retain the amount while keeping the assessment unresolved. The Court therefore directed refund of the pre-deposit immediately and permitted refund of the additional duty upon filing of an undertaking to abide by the eventual decision of the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The refund claim was allowed in part in favour of the petitioner, with immediate refund of the pre-deposit and conditional refund of the additional duty amount.

---