Procedural lapses cannot defeat public project exemption where end use is undisputed and certificates are duly countersigned.

Exemption under notifications for goods used in specified public projects was treated as available where the intended end use was not disputed and the certificates bore the competent district authority's countersignature. Procedural objections, including the form of the certificate and the absence of the assessee's name in the document, were regarded as technical lapses rather than grounds to deny the exemption. On that basis, a prima facie case was found against the duty demand and penalties, supporting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery despite alleged non-compliance with procedural conditions attached to the exemption notifications.

Analysis: The certificates produced for the disputed clearances were found to bear the necessary countersignature of the competent district authority. The notifications granted exemption for goods used for specified public projects, and the dispute turned essentially on procedural objections such as the form of the certificate and whether the assessee's name was specifically mentioned. The benefit had not been claimed at the clearance stage in one matter, but the same exemption was otherwise available. The reasoning adopted was that exemption should not be denied where the intended use of the goods was not disputed and the lapse, at worst, was technical or procedural. On that basis, a prima facie case was established against the duty demands and penalties.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the demanded duty and penalty amounts.

---