Pendency before the Supreme Court does not by itself disturb a refund order; a granted refund can render a cross-objection infructuous.

The mere pendency of a departmental appeal before the Supreme Court was not a legal basis to unsettle the Collector (Appeals) order on refund, so the departmental challenge failed. Once the refund had already been granted by the departmental authorities, the cross-objection was treated as no longer surviving and was dismissed as infructuous.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental appeal could succeed on the ground that an appeal against the earlier Tribunal order was pending before the Supreme Court, and whether the cross-objection survived after refund had been granted.

Analysis: The only substantive objection urged by the Department was that the refund dispute was linked to the demand matter and that the Collector (Appeals) order should be set aside because the demand issue was pending before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal held that the mere pendency of the departmental appeal before the Supreme Court was not a legal basis to disturb the Collector (Appeals) order. The cross-objection was treated as no longer surviving because the refund had already been granted by the departmental authorities.

Conclusion: The departmental appeal was rejected, and the cross-objection was dismissed as not surviving.

---