Prima facie exemption relief for marginal plant capacity variation justified waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

At the interim stage, a notification specifically linked to an identified plant was treated as prima facie applicable despite a marginal capacity difference, because the plant remained not less than 350 MW and the notification contained no prohibition against supply to a plant exceeding that level. The order noted that the excess capacity appeared to arise from technological necessity and did not defeat the notification's object. On that basis, the appellant obtained waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, while the appeal remained pending for final hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled, at the stay stage, to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery on the basis that the exemption notification was prima facie applicable to the plant despite the installed capacity being 359 MW instead of 350 MW.

Analysis: The notification specifically referred to the identified plant, and the dispute turned only on the marginal increase in capacity. The order notes that the plant was not less than 350 MW, that there was no prohibition in the notification against supply to a plant exceeding 350 MW, and that the excess capacity appeared to be attributable to technological necessity. On that basis, the notification was treated as prima facie available to the appellant for the purpose of interim relief.

Conclusion: The appellant was granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was allowed in favour of the appellant, while the appeal itself remained pending for final hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: At the interim stage, where a notification is specifically linked to an identified plant and the disputed difference in capacity is marginal and not shown to defeat the notification's object, prima facie exemption relief may justify waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

---