Notification exemption for WHO-directed supplies upheld; TRC certificate was not required on these facts.

Notification No. 108/95-C.E. as amended was held applicable where goods were supplied on WHO's order and delivered at TRC, Chennai at WHO's instance, because the supply was made for a WHO-funded project and WHO certified that the goods belonged to it. On those facts, proviso (a) to the notification was satisfied. Proviso (b)(ii), requiring a certificate from TRC issued by the competent officer, applied only where the supply was made to TRC in the relevant sense and was not attracted. The assessee was therefore entitled to the notification benefit, and the objection based on absence of a TRC certificate failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. as amended, and whether a certificate from the Tuberculosis Research Centre was necessary when the goods were supplied pursuant to the order of WHO and delivered at TRC at WHO's instance.

Analysis: The order for supply was placed by WHO, and the goods were supplied by the assessee on that basis and delivered at TRC, Chennai in accordance with WHO's direction. The record also showed that WHO funded the project and had issued a certificate that the goods belonged to it. On these facts, the case fell within proviso (a) of the notification. Proviso (b)(ii), which required a certificate from TRC issued by the competent officer, applied only where the supply was made to TRC in the relevant sense and was not attracted here.

Conclusion: The assessee was rightly extended the benefit of the notification, and the Revenue's objection based on absence of a TRC certificate was rejected.

---