Refund of duty cannot be withheld merely because an appeal is pending when no stay order exists.

Mere pendency of appeals before the Supreme Court, without any stay of the Tribunal's order, did not justify withholding refund of duty. The Tribunal had already set aside the demand on the basis that the petitioners were not manufacturers, and the Department relied only on pending appeals and stay petitions. The Court held that retention of the collected duty was unwarranted in the absence of a stay, and the refund was directed to be released to the petitioners.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Department could withhold refund of duty merely because appeals had been filed before the Supreme Court without any stay order.

Analysis: The Tribunal's order had set aside the lower authority's demand on the ground that the petitioners were not manufacturers, and refund was sought on that basis. The Department relied only on the filing of appeals and pending stay petitions before the Supreme Court. The Court held that mere pendency of an appeal, in the absence of any stay of the Tribunal's order, does not justify retention of the duty collected. The delay in securing stay and the smallness of the amounts were also noted as factors against withholding refund.

Conclusion: The Department was not entitled to retain the duty amount, and a direction was issued to refund the sums to the petitioners.

---