https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328309 Refund could not be withheld merely because an appeal had been filed, as the applicable Board circular permitted withholding only where a stay order had been obtained. The stay application was therefore treated as misconceived and infructuous. The reasoning also noted that the circular referred to orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereas the impugned order had been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, so the circular did not justify keeping the refund in abeyance. The stay application was dismissed and the refund was not to be withheld on the basis of the pending appeal alone. en-us Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jun 2016 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328309 Refund could not be withheld merely because an appeal had been filed, as the applicable Board circular permitted withholding only where a stay order had been obtained. The stay application was therefore treated as misconceived and infructuous. The reasoning also noted that the circular referred to orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereas the impugned order had been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, so the circular did not justify keeping the refund in abeyance. The stay application was dismissed and the refund was not to be withheld on the basis of the pending appeal alone. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328309