Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case and grounds for waiver of pre-deposit by claiming exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. for goods allegedly used in a project financed by an international organization.
Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. was held to be available only when the goods are supplied to the project itself and are required for execution of the approved project. Goods purchased in the contractor's own name and remaining under the contractor's ownership and control cannot be treated as goods supplied to the project, even if they are used in project work. The earlier decision relied upon by the appellants was distinguished on the ground that, in those cases, there was no dispute that the goods were supplied to the project. The appellants also failed to show financial hardship.
Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to stay or waiver of the duty pre-deposit, and the stay application was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The order proceeds on the basis that exemption-related relief requires supply of goods to the project with project control, and on that footing no interim relief was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: For exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E., the goods must be shown to have been supplied to the project and to be under project control; goods supplied to a contractor in his own name do not satisfy that requirement.