Exemption notification benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapse where prima facie eligibility and bona fide belief are shown.

Aluminium circles cleared at an intermediate stage were treated as prima facie eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 34/2001-C.E., where the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that no duty was payable and departmental officers had directed payment under the notification. Although the notification required an application to the jurisdictional Superintendent, the procedure itself allowed the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to permit availment even without strict compliance. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the benefit should not be denied merely for procedural non-compliance and allowed unconditional stay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to unconditional stay in view of the prima facie applicability of Notification No. 34/2001-C.E. despite non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that aluminium circles arising at an intermediate stage were being cleared under a bona fide belief that no duty was payable, and that the departmental officers had themselves directed payment under Notification No. 34/2001-C.E. The notification procedure required an application to the jurisdictional Superintendent, but the procedure also contemplated that the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner could permit availment of the notification even where the procedure was not strictly followed. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found a prima facie basis for the view that the benefit of the notification should not be denied merely for want of strict procedural compliance.

Conclusion: The stay petition was allowed unconditionally in favour of the appellant.

---