Prima facie illegality test governs stay against refund orders; acceptable explanation for refund eligibility defeats interim interference.

A stay of an order-in-appeal allowing refund under central excise law can be granted only where the impugned order discloses a prima facie illegality or infirmity. On the facts, the credit note, the alleged weight variation, and the use of goods received under Rule 173L for manufacture of goods within the same class were found to have a prima facie acceptable explanation. The expression "same class of goods" was treated broadly, not as requiring identical variety, and the refund order was considered legally proper on prima facie review. The Revenue therefore failed to justify interim interference, and the stay petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue was entitled to stay the operation of the order-in-appeal allowing refund under the Central Excise law.

Analysis: The claim for stay depended on whether the refund order disclosed any prima facie illegality. The dispute centred on the authenticity of the credit note, the alleged weight variation in the goods, and whether goods received under Rule 173L could be used for manufacture of goods falling under the same class of goods. The expression "same class of goods" was treated as having a wider meaning than identical variety, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have given a convincing prima facie explanation for the weight variation in the context of a continuous manufacturing process. The order-in-appeal was also found to be legally proper on a prima facie review.

Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish a sufficient ground for stay, and the stay petition was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The refund order was left to operate, with no interim interference granted in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: For refusal of stay, the impugned order must disclose a prima facie illegality or infirmity; where the explanation on refund eligibility and supporting documents is prima facie acceptable, interim interference is unwarranted.

---