Page 276 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

714 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

ished leather under CTH 4102 29 20. He furnished the CLRI report in which it is
stated that the goods are finished leather. Thus, the appeal filed by the depart-
ment is devoid of merits. Hence, the appeal is dismissed on merits.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 714 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. II]
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J)
GRAVITA INDIA LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF C. EX. & CENTRAL GOODS & S.T., JAIPUR
Final Order No. A/50360/2020-SM(BR), dated 18-2-2020 in Appeal
No. C/51329/2019-SM
Refund - SAD paid by using DEPB scrips - Exemption under Notifica-
tion No. 102/2007-Cus. - Admissibility - There is nothing in aforesaid notifica-
tion of its non-applicability in case SAD is paid by using duty payment
scrips - In view of Delhi High Court judgment in 2016 (334) E.L.T. 624 (Del.) on
identical matter, refund envisaged under aforesaid notification not deniable -
Stay of aforesaid judgment by Apex Court not meaning that it has lost its le-
gality - Refund admissible - Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 6, 7]
Precedent value of stayed orders - In terms of Delhi High Court judg-
ment in 2017 (355) E.L.T. 189 (Del.), unless and until any order set aside, mere
stay against it by higher forum would not effect its legality. [paras 6, 7]
Appeal allowed

CASES CITED
Allen Diesels India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016 (334) E.L.T. 624 (Del.)
— Relied on .............................................................................................................................. [Paras 3, 4, 6]
M.F. Rings & Bearing Races Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (337) E.L.T. 17 (Del.)
— Referred .................................................................................................................................... [Paras 4, 7]
Principal Commissioner v. Space Telelink Ltd. — 2017 (355) E.L.T. 189 (Del.)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 7]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
Public Notice No. 6/2014, dated 18-4-2014 .................................................................................. [Paras 2, 3, 7]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Ankit Totuka, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Y. Singh, Authorised Representative, for the Re-
spondent.
[Order]. - The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein
refund of SAD was rejected on the ground that the duty has been paid by the
appellant by utilising duty paid script.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is importer and trader.
The appellant imported consignment and duty was paid by utilising duty paying
script. Later on, the appellant paid VAT/CST while selling the imported goods

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  276