Exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. supported interim waiver where absence of registration did not defeat prima facie relief.

Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was treated as capable of supporting exemption for a brine chilling plant manufactured at the user unit's factory premises, and the absence of registration under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not, on the available record, a sufficient prima facie basis to deny that exemption. At the interim stage, the material did not displace the claimed exemption, so a prima facie case was found for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of duty, penalty and redemption fine.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of duty, penalty and redemption fine, in view of the claimed exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E.

Analysis: The demand and penalties arose from the classification and duty liability of a brine chilling plant manufactured at the factory premises of the user unit. The applicant relied on Notification No. 67/95-C.E. as conferring exemption, and the objection raised was that registration prescribed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had not been obtained. The notification itself did not prescribe that condition, and the record did not negate applicability of the exemption at the stage of interim consideration. On that basis, the denial of exemption solely for want of such registration was not sustainable prima facie.

Conclusion: A prima facie case existed for grant of interim relief, and the duty demand, penalties and redemption fine were ordered to be waived from pre-deposit and recovery stayed.

---