Full Judgment
2. After hearing, it is found that the issue involved in this case is interpretation of the clause used in paragraph 2 clause (iv) of notification 9/98 CE which uses the term "aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods for home consumption by a manufacturer from one or more factories or from a factory by one or more manufacturers". This clause and term used, marked by does not use the words and terms "for and on behalf" as they were used in the notification No. 85/85, relied upon by the lower authorities following the decision in the case of CC, Bangalore v. Gammon Fan Chemicals Ltd. 3. In view of this marked changed in the terms used, in notification 9/98, we find that prima-facie, a case for waiver of pre-deposit requirement and ordering stay of recovery has been made out, since a holding company and the subsidiary company cannot be considered to be same manufacturer.
4. The issue involved in this matter are of a recurring nature and requires out of turn resolution. Therefore, we would grant both sides the liberty to file such application.