Changed exemption notification wording can support prima facie waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

A material change in the wording of an exemption notification can limit reliance on earlier precedent where the later text no longer uses the same "for and on behalf" language. On that basis, the Tribunal treated a holding company and its subsidiary as distinct for the interim stage and held that the department's earlier authority was not directly applicable. A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was therefore established, and interim relief was granted with recovery stayed pending further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the wording of Notification No. 9/98, the appellants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis: The notification used the expression relating to aggregate value of clearances for home consumption by a manufacturer for one or more factories, and did not employ the words "for and on behalf" found in Notification No. 85/85. In view of this change in language, the earlier authority relied upon by the department was not directly applicable. On that basis, the Tribunal found that a holding company and its subsidiary could not be treated as the same manufacturer for the purpose of the interim relief sought.

Conclusion: A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was made out in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted and the demand was stayed pending further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the wording of an exemption notification is materially different from an earlier notification, the applicability of earlier precedent must be assessed in light of the changed language, and interim relief may follow if a prima facie case is shown.

---