Later-added installation condition could not govern earlier imports, supporting waiver of pre-deposit and interim stay pending appeal.

Imported machinery was covered by the exemption notification in force on the date of importation, and that notification did not require installation within one year or within any extended period. The one-year installation condition was introduced only by a later amendment, so the demand was based on a requirement not applicable at the time of importation. On that prima facie basis, the appellant was found entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and interim stay against recovery of duty and penalties pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and interim stay in view of the condition requiring installation of imported machinery within one year, when that condition was introduced only by a later amendment to the exemption notification.

Analysis: The imported machinery was covered by the original notification in force on the date of importation, and that notification did not then prescribe installation within one year or within the extended period. The one-year installation requirement was inserted subsequently by amendment. On that basis, the demand rested on a condition not applicable at the time of importation, which showed a prima facie case in favour of the appellant for protection against recovery pending appeal.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and interim stay against recovery of duty and penalties.

---