Project-linked exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. cannot be denied merely because the certificate names the contracting entity.

Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. is not to be denied solely because the project certificate is issued in the name of the contracting entity rather than the actual manufacturer-supplier, where the project linkage is otherwise established. The agreement showed that the certificate-holder had been awarded the project and had engaged the respondent to manufacture and supply biscuits for that project. On those facts, the certificate requirement was satisfied in substance, and earlier Tribunal decisions treating the supplier's name as non-essential were applied. The notification benefit was therefore available, so the Revenue's objection on the certificate name failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. dated 28-8-95 could be denied merely because the certificate required by the notification was issued in the name of the contracting entity and not in the name of the actual manufacturer supplying the goods for the project.

Analysis: The agreement showed that the entity in whose name the certificate stood had been awarded the project and had engaged the respondent to manufacture and supply the biscuits for execution of that project. A clear linkage between the certificate-holder and the respondent was established. On those facts, the certificate requirement under the notification was satisfied in substance, and the earlier Tribunal decisions holding that the certificate need not necessarily be in the name of the supplier were applicable.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification was rightly extended to the respondent, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the project link is established and the certificate is issued to the project-awarded entity, exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. cannot be denied solely because the certificate is not in the name of the manufacturer-supplier.

---