ORDER 1. The Department has challenged the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the CESTAT) dated October 30, 2009, raising the following questions for our consideration: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in finally allowing appeal of the respondent without recording any findings on the point of controversy involved in appeal No. C/571/2009 SM filed by the respondent? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in deciding the appeal No. C/571/2009 SM filed by the respondent on the basis of interlocutory order passed by the Tribunal in collateral proceedings being appeal No. C/269271/2009? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in finally allowing appeal of the respondent on sole consideration that interlocutory order No. S/11811183/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 04.10.2010 passed by the Tribunal in collateral appeal proceedings filed by the respondent, even though the said order stands vacated by operation of subsection (2A) of Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 inasmuch as stay granted by the Tribunal in the said order does not expressly provide that it will remain in operation till final disposal of appeal No. C/269271/2009? (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in holding that order of adjustment made by the revenue under section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 stands nullified by interlocutory order of stay passed by the Tribunal in collateral proceedings and the revenue was obliged to suo motu suggestion and prayed refund claim of the respondent without any delay? 2. The brief facts are that the respondent is entitled to refund of interest of Rs. 11.02 lakh (rounded off) on the delayed payment of refund of Rs. 58.90 lakh (rounded off), as against that penalty of Rs. 25 lakh was imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on March 28, 2008. The authority, therefore, adjusted the refund of interest of Rs. 11.02 lakh, which was already sanctioned against the penalty amount of Rs. 25 lakh. Before the Tribunal, it was pointed out that the penalty of Rs. 25 lakh was unconditionally stayed by the Tribunal by an order dated October 04, 2010 passed in appeal filed by the respondent. The authority, therefore, adjusted the refund of interest of Rs. 11.02 lakh, which was already sanctioned against the penalty amount of Rs. 25 lakh. Before the Tribunal, it was pointed out that the penalty of Rs. 25 lakh was unconditionally stayed by the Tribunal by an order dated October 04, 2010 passed in appeal filed by the respondent. In this context, the Tribunal in the impugned judgment observed as under: “4. Heard both the sides and perused the case records. It is observed that when the OIL dated 9.1.2009 and OIA 30.10.2009 were passed by the lower authorities. Stay order No. S/11811183/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 4/10/2010 in Appeal No. C/S13131315/09DB, C/269 271/2009, granting unconditional stay of Rs. 25 lakh penalty to the appellant, was not existing. Therefore, the order of adjustment made and upheld by the lower authorities were justified. However, when stay order dated 4.10.2010 was passed by CESTAT granting unconditional stay with respect to penalty of Rs.25 lakh Revenue should have suomoto sanctioned and paid the refund claim of the appellant without any delay. 5. In view of the above appeal filed by the appellant for payment of refund of Rs. 11,02,268/- is allowed as per para 8(B) of their grounds of appeal.” 3. The learned counsel for the Revenue contended that in terms of section 142 of the Customs Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it was open for the authority to adjust such interest against assessee's other duty liabilities. The stay of the penalty was only an interlocutory order and final decision is awaited. 4. We notice that section 142 of the Act provides inter alia that where any sum payable by any person under the Act is not paid, the proper officer may deduct or may require any other officer of the customs to deduct the amount so payable from any money owing to such person which may be under the control of proper officer or such officer of the customs. 5. When the penalty of Rs. 25 lakh imposed by the order in original was unconditionally stayed, it was no longer an amount payable by the respondent to the Department. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the Tribunal committed no error. Allowing Department to adjust the refund against the said liability would virtually nullify the effect of the stay. 6. In the result, the Tax Appeal is dismissed. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the Tribunal committed no error. Allowing Department to adjust the refund against the said liability would virtually nullify the effect of the stay. 6. In the result, the Tax Appeal is dismissed. The connected Civil Application also does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.