Exemption for project goods cannot be denied merely because invoices were routed through a dealer.

Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. was not liable to be denied merely because the invoices were issued in a dealer's name, where the project certificate identified the contractor as the consignee and the records showed the goods were actually received for an ADB-funded State project. The substantive exemption conditions were treated as satisfied, and the invoicing route did not defeat eligibility. On that basis, the Revenue's challenge failed and the exemption was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could be denied merely because the invoices were issued in the name of a dealer while the consignee mentioned in the invoices was the contractor named in the project certificate.

Analysis: The goods were shown to have been supplied for a project financed by the Asian Development Bank and implemented by the State Government. The project certificate identified the contractor and certified the requirement of the goods. The invoices, though raised on the dealer as buyer, named the contractor as consignee, and the records did not show that the goods were not actually received by the contractor. On these facts, the invoicing pattern did not displace the substantive compliance with the exemption conditions.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the sole ground that the invoices were not issued directly in the contractor's name, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the exemption conditions are substantively satisfied and the goods are shown to have been received by the named contractor, exemption cannot be refused merely because the invoice was routed through a dealer.

---