https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268437 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. en-us Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Nov 2015 06:50:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268437 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268437