Exemption notification benefit extended on prima facie basis for job work done for an international competitive bidder.

Interim relief was granted where job work was undertaken for an international competitive bidder and the exemption notifications contained no express restriction barring such assignment or requiring the subcontractor to be separately registered in the bidding process. On a prima facie view, the earlier decisions and absence of any restrictive condition supported the appellant's claim to the notification benefit. Waiver of pre-deposit was allowed and recovery remained stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery on a prima facie view that the benefit of the exemption notifications was available to the job work undertaken for the international competitive bidder.

Analysis: The dispute at this stage concerned only interim relief. It was noted that BHEL was an international competitive bidder and that the appellant was carrying out job work for BHEL. The relevant exemption notification did not contain any condition prohibiting BHEL from assigning job work to the appellant, nor did it require the sub-contractor to be separately registered as a participant in the international competitive bidding. In view of the earlier cited decisions and the absence of an express restrictive condition in the notifications, a prima facie case was found in favour of the appellant.

Conclusion: The request for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was allowed, and recovery was directed to remain stayed until disposal of the appeal.

---