ORDER
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The competent authority had held that the respondent-assessee was liable to pay duty of Rs. 9,05,814.44. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. It also filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal vide its order dated October 7, 1993, directed the assessee to make the deposit of the entire duty within three months. The payment was made. On February 15, 1999, the order passed by the Authorities under the Act was set aside. The assessee’s appeal was allowed with consequential relief. On failure to make the payment, the assessee approached the Tribunal. By its order dated April 4, 2001, the Tribunal observed that the assessee himself could have taken credit of the amount by making necessary endorsement in his own PLA account. The assessee is directed to take credit of the said amount in his PLA with notice to the concerned jurisdictional authority. The officer is directed not to pursue the show cause notice issued proposing to reject the claim for return of the money”. The Revenue has filed this petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with the prayer that the Tribunal be directed to file a statement of the case and refer the questions of law for the opinion of this Court.
2. The case was posted before a Bench on March, 13, 2002. It was adjourned to enable the Counsel for the Revenue to file an affidavit along with proof of payment to the respondents. The affidavit of Ms. Renuka Mann, Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II has been filed. It has been averred that the respondent has taken credit in terms of the CEGAT’s order. Thus, the direction given by the Tribunal has been complied with.
3. Mr. Govind Goel contends that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct the refund of the amount.
4. The contention is misconceived. The order by which the demand was raised, was challenged by the assessee. It had also prayed for stay. The prayer for stay was not allowed. Thus, the deposit was made in accordance with the direction given by the Tribunal vide its order dated October 7, 1993. Finally, the appeal was allowed on February 15, 1999 “with consequential relief”. Resultantly, refund was a direct consequence of the acceptance of appeal and had to be allowed. The Revenue had not got any stay order. Thus, the refund had to be made. There was no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. In any event, the adjustment having already been done, this petition has become infructuous. No question of law subsists, which may require the opinion of this Court.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.