Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. upheld despite certificate name mismatch for ADB-financed project supplies.

Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could not be denied merely because the prescribed certificates were not issued in the supplier's name, where the goods were admittedly supplied for identified Asian Development Bank-financed projects, the required project and financing certificates were produced, and there was no allegation of diversion. The operative principle applied was that substantive compliance with the notification prevailed over the name discrepancy in the certificates. On those facts, the exemption remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could be denied merely because the prescribed certificates were not issued in the respondent's name, though the goods were supplied for the identified ADB-financed projects and there was no allegation of diversion.

Analysis: The supplied mild steel CTD bars were admittedly used for projects financed by the Asian Development Bank and implemented through the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project. The required certificates, certifying project requirement and foreign-aided financing with Government of India approval, were produced. The only objection was that the respondent's name did not appear as supplier in the certificates. In the absence of any dispute that the goods were supplied to the persons named in the certificates and in the absence of any allegation of diversion, the benefit of the exemption could not be refused. The reasoning followed the settled view that direct supply to the project is not indispensable where the substantive conditions of the notification are satisfied.

Conclusion: Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could not be denied on the ground that the certificates were not in the respondent's name, and the benefit was rightly allowed to the respondent.

---