Exemption certificate naming dispute leads to prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE was denied because the prescribed certificates were issued in the name of the project contractor or beneficiary, not the manufacturer or supplier of the goods. The Tribunal noted conflicting prior decisions on whether such certification defect defeats the exemption, with one line denying relief and another granting it on similar facts. Because of this divergence, the applicants were found to have established a prima facie case for interim protection. Waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery of duty and penalties was stayed pending disposal of the appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery should be granted where exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE was denied on the ground that the prescribed certificates were not issued in the name of the manufacturer or supplier of the goods.

Analysis: The appeal arose from denial of exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE because the certificates were issued in the name of the project contractor or beneficiary rather than the supplier. The Tribunal noted that its prior decisions were not uniform: one line of authority denied the exemption where the certificate was not in the supplier's name, while other decisions had granted the exemption in similar factual settings. In view of these conflicting decisions, the applicants were held to have established a prima facie case for interim protection.

Conclusion: Waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery of duty and penalties was stayed pending disposal of the appeals.

---