Bona fide belief on fresh declaration requirement supports stay pending appeal in excise credit dispute.

Stay of the impugned order was granted pending appeal because the appellants showed a prima facie case that no fresh declaration was required after rescission of the earlier notification and issuance of a similar one. Their conduct was treated as consistent with a bona fide belief, reinforced by the departmental clarification on the declaration requirement. The Tribunal confined its view to the stay stage and left the legal effect of the clarification, and the requirement for a fresh declaration, for final determination in the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the operation of the impugned order should be stayed pending appeal in view of the appellants' bona fide belief and the departmental clarification regarding the need for a fresh declaration after the rescission of the earlier notification.

Analysis: The appellants had been availing credit under the relevant excise rules and notification, and after the earlier notification was rescinded and a similar notification was issued, the dispute turned on whether a fresh declaration was required. The Tribunal noted, at the stay stage, that the appellants had shown a prima facie case because they acted under a bona fide belief that no fresh declaration was necessary, a belief strengthened by the clarification issued by the departmental authority. The legal effect of that clarification and its implications were left for consideration at the final hearing of the appeal.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to stay of the operation of the impugned order pending disposal of the appeal.

---