Binding precedent governs exemption without C Forms when no stay operates against the earlier ruling.

Exemption benefits under the cited notifications were treated as available without production of C Forms where the controversy was already covered by the earlier binding decision in Prism Cement and the connected follow-on orders. The Bombay High Court noted that no stay operated against that precedent and applied the same view to the subsequent petition. On that basis, the impugned order denying exemption could not be sustained, and the earlier binding ruling controlled the outcome in the later matter.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the exemption benefits under the cited notifications without production of C Forms, and whether the impugned order was liable to be quashed in view of the earlier binding decision on the same issue.

Analysis: The petition raised a challenge under Article 226 to the order denying the claimed exemption. The issue was treated as covered by the earlier decision in Prism Cement and the connected orders following that ruling, and it was noted that no stay operated against that precedent. In that setting, the Court applied the earlier binding view to the present matter.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to the exemption benefit without production of C Forms, and the impugned order could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy is squarely governed by an earlier binding decision and no stay operates against it, the same relief is to be granted in the subsequent petition.

---