Filing of an SLP does not stay an operative order; compliance directions based on that order remain enforceable.

Mere filing of an SLP against a CEGAT order did not operate as a stay, because no specific stay had been obtained from the Supreme Court. The High Court held that the appellate order therefore continued to remain enforceable, and the direction requiring payment of duty in accordance with that order could not be treated as illegal. A communication that merely called for compliance with an existing appellate order did not create any independent liability beyond the operative order itself, so the assessee's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether mere filing of an SLP against the CEGAT order operated as a stay, and whether the direction requiring payment of duty in accordance with that order was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The petitioners had failed to obtain any stay from the Supreme Court despite repeated s, and the Court held that filing of an appeal by itself does not suspend the operation of the impugned order. Since the CEGAT order continued to remain operative, the direction that duty be paid in accordance with that order, failing which action under the Central Excise Rules, was not shown to be illegal. The challenged communication did not determine any independent right of the petitioners beyond requiring compliance with the existing appellate order.

Conclusion: The challenge failed, and the direction was upheld against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere filing of an appeal or SLP does not amount to a stay of the order under challenge; unless a competent appellate court grants specific stay, the existing order remains enforceable.

---