Exemption notification location mismatch justified interim stay against refund relief in a D.G. set manufacturing dispute.

Interim relief was granted where the Revenue showed a prima facie case that the unit's village was not specifically named in the annexure to Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. The unit had claimed refund under paragraph 3(b) for manufacture of D.G. sets, but the refund was rejected because the location was not shown in the notification. At the interim stage, the material produced did not displace that position, so operation of the Commissioner (Appeals) order was stayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether stay of operation of the Commissioner (Appeals) order should be granted in view of the Revenue's prima facie case and the unit's location not being mentioned in the exemption notification.

Analysis: The unit was engaged in manufacture of D.G. sets falling under Chapter 85 and had claimed refund under paragraph 3(b) of Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. The refund had been rejected because the unit's village was not specifically mentioned in the notification's annexure. On a prima facie assessment, the unit's location was not shown in the notification, and the material placed by the respondent did not displace that position at the interim stage.

Conclusion: Stay of the impugned order was granted and the Revenue's application succeeded.

---