Project-based excise exemption requires direct supply to the approved project; cum-duty pricing stands where review has been dismissed.

Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE was confined to goods supplied directly to an approved project financed by an international organisation and supported by the prescribed certification; supply to an intermediary contractor did not satisfy that condition, so the exemption was unavailable. Cum-duty price treatment was also upheld because the Revenue's objection rested on a review petition that had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court, leaving no basis to disturb the benefit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE was available when the goods were supplied to a contractor and not directly to the specified project; (ii) Whether cum-duty price benefit was wrongly allowed.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE was available when the goods were supplied to a contractor and not directly to the specified project.

Analysis: The Notification granted exemption only for goods supplied to a project approved by the Government of India and financed by an international organisation, subject to the prescribed certification. The goods in question were not supplied to the specified hydro project itself but to M/s. Sulzer Flovel Hydro Ltd., which was only a supplier of electro-mechanical equipment. The settled interpretation of the Notification required direct supply to the project, and the cited authorities supported denial of exemption where that requirement was not met.

Conclusion: The exemption was not available and the denial of benefit was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cum-duty price benefit was wrongly allowed.

Analysis: The challenge was based on the pendency of a review petition in the decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). The record showed that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the review petition, removing the basis for the Revenue's objection to the cum-duty treatment.

Conclusion: The cum-duty price benefit was not shown to be wrongly allowed, against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The denial of project-based exemption and the allowance of cum-duty price treatment were both sustained, resulting in dismissal of both appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption notifications conditioned on supply to an approved project are available only when the goods are supplied directly to the specified project, and cum-duty treatment cannot be disturbed on the basis of a review petition that has already been dismissed.

---