Binding refund order prevails over later limitation rejection, with delayed repayment carrying interest at the prescribed rate.

A prior Tribunal order granting refund was binding and had to be implemented; a later adjudication rejecting the refund claim as time-barred could not defeat compliance with that earlier direction. Where refund had already accrued under the binding order but remained unpaid despite repeated directions, the refundable amount was required to be released with interest at the prescribed rate for the period of delay. The operative effect was that the Revenue had to comply with the earlier refund order within a reasonable time and could not rely on the subsequent limitation-based rejection to avoid payment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Revenue was bound to implement the Tribunal's earlier order granting refund and could rely on a subsequent rejection of the refund claim as time-barred; (ii) whether the appellants were entitled to refund of the confiscated amount with interest.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue was bound to implement the Tribunal's earlier order granting refund and could rely on a subsequent rejection of the refund claim as time-barred.

Analysis: The earlier Tribunal order had already set aside the orders of the authorities below and had conferred entitlement to refund. A later adjudication by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the refund on a new ground of limitation could not override or impede compliance with the Tribunal's binding direction. The Revenue was under a legal obligation to give effect to the earlier order within a reasonable time.

Conclusion: The subsequent time-bar rejection could not stand in the way of implementation of the Tribunal's earlier refund order.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to refund of the confiscated amount with interest.

Analysis: Since the refund had already accrued under the earlier Tribunal order and had not been granted despite repeated directions, the amount had to be returned along with interest at the prescribed rate. Delay in implementation justified grant of interest on the refund amount.

Conclusion: The appellants were held entitled to refund of the confiscated amount along with interest at the prescribed rates.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue was directed to comply with the earlier refund order by releasing the amount with interest within one month, and the miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent adjudication rejecting a refund claim on limitation cannot defeat a prior binding order directing refund, and non-compliance with such order warrants refund with interest.

---