Appellants entitled to benefit under Notification No. 108/95 for supplies to UNICEF

The CESTAT held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 108/95 for supplies made to UNICEF for their official use, as certified by UNICEF. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with the CESTAT order, allowing the benefit of the said notification for the relevant supplies made to UNICEF.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 108/95 dated 28.8.1995 for supplies made to UNICEF.

Analysis:
The appellant had approached the CESTAT for the second time after a remand by CESTAT in an earlier round. The Commissioner had passed an Order-in-Original confirming duty demand, interest, and penalty, which the appellants contested on the grounds of being denied the benefit of Notification No. 108/95. The Commissioner had denied the benefit based on specific grounds mentioned in the impugned order. The certificate issued by UNICEF, as presented by the appellants, indicated that the goods were for the official use of UNICEF, which was not disputed by the adjudicating authority.

The relevant Notification No. 108/95 exempted goods supplied to the United Nations or international organizations for official use or to projects financed by these entities and approved by the Government of India. The notification required specific certificates before clearance of goods, depending on the nature of the supply. In this case, the certificate from UNICEF stating the goods were for official use sufficed for claiming the exemption under the notification. The absence of a specific mention of excise duty exemption in the certificate did not negate the entitlement to exemption under the notification.

The CESTAT held that the appellants were indeed entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 108/95 for supplies made to UNICEF for their official use, as certified by UNICEF. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with the CESTAT order and allowing the benefit of the said notification for the relevant supplies made to UNICEF.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, the arguments presented by the parties, the legal provisions involved, and the final decision rendered by the CESTAT in favor of the appellants based on the interpretation of the relevant notification and supporting documentation provided.

---