Successful Appeal Against Adjudication Order Confirming Demand Under Notification No. 108/95-C.E.

The appellants successfully appealed against the adjudication order confirming a demand, as they were found to have wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. The Revenue's allegation of suppression was refuted, with the appellants demonstrating regular declaration of goods cleared under the notification and providing supporting documents. The demand made in 2001 was deemed time-barred due to lack of evidence showing the appellants' awareness of the loan suspension, resulting in the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside.

---

---

Issues:
1. Benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. wrongly availed by the appellants.
2. Allegation of suppression by the Revenue.
3. Time-barred demand due to lack of suppression on the part of the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The appellants appealed against the adjudication order confirming the demand, stating that they wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. during a specific period. The notification provides duty exemption for goods supplied to projects financed by International Organisations and approved by the Government of India. The appellants supplied goods to a project funded by the World Bank, but the bank suspended the loan on a certain date, leading to a dispute over the eligibility for the notification's benefit.

2. The Revenue alleged suppression by the appellants, issuing a show cause notice in 2001. The appellants argued that they regularly declared to the Revenue that goods were cleared under the notification's benefit, with documents from the Maharashtra State Electricity Board confirming the project's financing by the World Bank. The Revenue failed to prove that the appellants were aware of the loan suspension, leading to a contention that no suppression could be alleged against them.

3. The demand for the disputed period was made in 2001, invoking Section 11A due to alleged suppression. However, the appellants' consistent declaration and provision of supporting documents regarding the project's financing status by the World Bank, along with the lack of evidence showing their awareness of the loan suspension, led to the conclusion that the demand was time-barred. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the cross-objections by the respondents disposed of accordingly.

---