Stay-cum-waiver relief and excise recovery stayed where duty was paid, no revenue loss shown, and hardship was not properly considered.

Where duty had already been paid before removal of the goods and no revenue loss was shown, the alleged default was treated as prima facie technical. The rejection of stay also failed to adequately consider the assessee's prima facie case, prior permission for removal of intermediate goods, and claimed financial hardship. In these circumstances, partial refusal of the stay-cum-waiver request was unsustainable, and recovery of excise duty and penalty was to remain stayed pending the appeal without expressing any view on the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the stay-cum-waiver application ought to have been allowed having regard to the prima facie merits, prior payment of duty, general permission for removal of inputs, and the financial condition of the assessee.

Analysis: The duty had already been paid before removal of the goods and there was no loss of revenue to the department. The record also indicated that general permission had been obtained for removal of the intermediate goods, making the alleged default appear prima facie technical in nature. In addition, the order rejecting relief did not adequately address the assessee's claimed financial difficulty or give reasons for granting stay only to a limited extent. In these circumstances, the waiver-cum-stay request merited acceptance without expressing any view on the merits of the appeal.

Conclusion: The stay-cum-waiver application was wrongly rejected in part and should have been allowed; recovery of excise duty and penalty was liable to remain stayed pending the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty has already been paid, no revenue loss is shown, and the order does not properly consider prima facie merits and financial hardship, refusal of full stay or waiver is unsustainable.

---