Strict construction of exemption notifications led to refusal of unconditional waiver and requirement of conditional pre-deposit.

At the stay stage under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal weighed prima facie merits against undue hardship and revenue protection, and held that the appellant had not established a case for full waiver. Applying strict construction of exemption notifications and relying on the settled interpretation of the relevant exemption entry, it noted that exemption from 1.3.2001 was confined to intravenous fluids used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment. The goods, being intravenous preparations containing medicines, did not clearly fall within that narrowed scope. Unconditional waiver was therefore refused, and conditional pre-deposit was required before the balance of recovery was stayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.

Analysis: The appeal arose at the stay stage, where the Tribunal was required to assess prima facie merits and the balance between undue hardship to the assessee and protection of revenue under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The disputed goods were intravenous preparations containing medicines, and the Tribunal noted that an earlier decision on the same exemption entry had already held that, from 1.3.2001 onwards, exemption was confined to intravenous fluids used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment. Applying the settled principle that exemption notifications must be construed strictly, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not shown a prima facie case for full waiver.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to unconditional waiver; a conditional pre-deposit was required and only the balance was stayed upon compliance.

---