Enforceable refund orders survive pending appeals without stay; alternative remedy and unjust enrichment objections do not defeat writ relief.

A pending appeal does not suspend an adjudicated order unless it is stayed, so the refund direction remained operative and enforceable. The existence of an alternative remedy under Rule 41 did not bar writ relief where the binding tribunal decision was not being implemented. The objection of unjust enrichment also failed because the competent tribunal had already ruled on the legality of the claim. The respondents were directed to grant the refund with interest and costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was premature because an appeal against the tribunal's order was pending before the Supreme Court; (ii) whether the existence of a remedy under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 barred the writ petition; and (iii) whether the refund claim could be defeated on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was premature because an appeal against the tribunal's order was pending before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: Filing of an appeal does not suspend the effectiveness of the order appealed against. Unless the order is varied, modified, or stayed, it continues to bind the parties. As no stay had been granted, the order remained operative and enforceable.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not premature.

Issue (ii): whether the existence of a remedy under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 barred the writ petition.

Analysis: The mere availability of an alternative remedy does not, by itself, preclude writ jurisdiction. Where the authority has failed to give effect to a binding tribunal decision, recourse to writ jurisdiction remains maintainable.

Conclusion: The alternative remedy did not bar the writ petition.

Issue (iii): whether the refund claim could be defeated on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The plea of unjust enrichment could not survive where a competent tribunal had already ruled on the legality of the petitioner's claim. In such a situation, the contention had no substance.

Conclusion: The objection of unjust enrichment was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The respondents were directed to grant the refund with interest at 18% per annum from 7-6-1990 until payment, and the writ petition was allowed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsisting appellate challenge does not render an adjudicated refund order unenforceable in the absence of stay, and the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar writ relief where the binding decision is not being implemented.

---