Prima facie case for stay fails where test reports suggest goods fall outside the exemption and interim relief is declined.

Prima facie case for stay was not established where test reports indicated the yarn was of a higher denier than the notification's permitted tolerance, suggesting it fell outside the exemption. Objections to the testing method and the request for cross-examination were left for determination in the main appeal, not at the interim stage. The absence of any pleaded financial hardship also weighed against relief. On balance of convenience and the available record, interim protection was declined and the stay request was rejected in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for stay against the demand, particularly on the grounds of test results, cross-examination, and applicability of the notification exemption to the yarn in question.

Analysis: The relevant notification prescribed 210 denier with a tolerance of 4 per cent, and both test reports showed the yarn to be of a higher denier. The appellants had not pleaded financial hardship. The objections regarding the testing method and cross-examination were treated as matters to be considered in the main appeal, while at the stay stage the record was sufficient to show that the yarn appeared to be outside the permissible limit. On that basis, the balance of convenience and prima facie assessment did not support interim relief.

Conclusion: The request for stay was rejected and interim relief was declined in favour of the Revenue.

---