Interim stay of recovery granted where prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury supported appeal pending relief.

Interim protection against coercive recovery was justified where the assessee showed a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likely irreparable injury pending appeal. The Tribunal also treated the absence of reasons in the stay rejection order as significant, because a stay refusal must disclose a reasoned basis. The dispute concerned whether hydrogenated vegetable oil could fall within edible oil exemption notifications and whether the resulting levy and anti-evasion action were sustainable. The impugned recovery steps were therefore kept in abeyance until the appeals were decided, while the merits of classification and exemption were left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeals, and whether the impugned stay rejection order disclosed a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in favour of the petitioner.

Analysis: The original applications arose from pending appeals against provisional assessment and demand notices. The disputed issue turned on whether hydrogenated vegetable oil could be treated as edible oil for the exemption notifications, whether the anti-evasion action and resulting levy were justified, and whether the rejection of stay was a reasoned order as required by the applicable rules. The record showed that the stay refusal did not assign reasons. The materials placed before the Tribunal disclosed a substantial arguable case on classification and exemption, and the petitioner showed that coercive recovery before disposal of the appeals would cause prejudice that could not be adequately compensated later. On that basis, the Tribunal found the balance of convenience in favour of protecting the petitioner from recovery steps during pendency of the appeals.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to interim protection against coercive recovery, and the stay rejection order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The disputed demands were kept in abeyance pending final disposal of the appeals, with the merits left open for determination by the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee shows a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury, and the order refusing stay is unreasoned, interim protection against coercive recovery is warranted pending appeal.

---