Typographical error in exemption certificate cannot defeat interim relief where factual eligibility remains to be verified.

A typographical error in the Project Authority Certificate, wrongly mentioning the manufacturing unit's address, was treated as a procedural lapse and not a ground to defeat interim exemption relief. Because the record suggested the relevant facility existed at the other unit and the underlying eligibility required final factual verification, a prima facie case for full waiver of recovery was made out. Stay from recovery of the confirmed dues and penalties was therefore granted until disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether an inadvertent wrong mention of the manufacturing unit's address in the Project Authority Certificate, being only a typographical mistake, could justify denial of the exemption claim and refusal of stay from recovery.

Analysis: The wrong address in the Project Authority Certificate was found to be a typographical error. The record indicated that the relevant manufacturing facility existed at the other unit, and the mistake was procedural in nature. A procedural lapse was held not sufficient to defeat a substantive entitlement at the interim stage, particularly where the factual verification of the facility and eligibility required examination at final hearing. On this basis, a prima facie case for complete waiver of recovery was made out.

Conclusion: The procedural error could not be used to deny interim relief, and stay from recovery of the confirmed dues and penalties was granted till disposal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere typographical or procedural error in a certificate cannot, by itself, be relied upon to deny substantive interim relief where the underlying factual eligibility is yet to be adjudicated.

---