Exemption for naphtha supply survives mere company name change; unconditional stay and waiver of pre-deposit followed.

An exemption notification for naphtha supplied to a power plant was held to remain applicable where the supplier company had only changed its name and its constitution was unchanged. Because the unit was already covered by the notification, and the business had not been sold or leased to another entity, denial of the benefit solely on the basis of the name change was treated as a procedural objection that could not defeat the substantive exemption. The prior dropping of demand for an earlier period also strengthened the prima facie case, supporting unconditional stay, full waiver of pre-deposit, and protection from recovery during the appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to unconditional stay and waiver of pre-deposit where the exemption notification covered supply of naphtha to the power plant and the supplier company had only changed its name.

Analysis: The exemption notification was in force and granted benefit for naphtha supplied to power plants. The appellant's unit was already included in the notification's list, and the change in the company's name did not alter its constitution. The company had neither been sold nor leased to another entity. The denial of exemption solely on the ground of a changed name was treated as a procedural objection, insufficient to defeat the substantive benefit. The prior dropping of the demand for an earlier period also supported the appellant's prima facie case.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to unconditional stay, full waiver of pre-deposit, and protection from recovery during pendency of the appeals.

---