Prima facie case justified stay of excise demand and waiver of pre-deposit, leaving unjust enrichment for merits.

A stay application concerning repayment of refund, interest and penalty was allowed on a prima facie basis, and pre-deposit was waived pending appeal. The appellant argued that the product was exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 56/2002-CE, while the respondent objected on unjust enrichment grounds. The objection was noted, but it was treated as an issue for decision on the appeal merits, including the contention that no such charge was raised in the show cause notice. For the limited purpose of interim relief, the prima facie case justified staying the demand and waiving deposit until final disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for repayment, along with interest and penalty, should be stayed and the requirement of deposit waived pending disposal of the appeal, in view of the appellant's prima facie case and the respondent's objection based on unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The demand arose from an amount earlier refunded after being treated as wrongly paid excise duty, while the appellant contended that the product was exempt from duty under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14-11-2002. The objection of unjust enrichment was noted, but it was held that this question would require consideration on the appeal on merits, including the contention that no such charge had been raised in the show cause notice. For the limited purpose of the stay application, the appellant was found to have made out a prima facie case.

Conclusion: The impugned demand was stayed and the requirement of deposit was waived pending final disposal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prima facie case is shown in a stay application, the demand may be stayed and pre-deposit waived pending adjudication of the appeal, leaving questions such as unjust enrichment to be decided on merits.

---