Beneficial excise exemption upheld for sub-contractor supplies to a public project despite omission in the project certificate.

Beneficial exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CE could not be denied merely because the district authority certificate did not separately name the sub-contractor, where the supply chain, invoice records, correspondence and prior intimation to the jurisdictional excise officer showed that the cables were cleared for the specified water treatment plant project. The tribunal applied the principle that technical omissions should not defeat an exemption when the goods were actually used for the intended public project and there was no allegation of misuse. The exemption was allowed and the duty demand was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CE for cables cleared as a sub-contractor for a water treatment plant project notwithstanding that the district authority certificate did not name the appellant.

Analysis: The records showed that before clearance the appellant had informed the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer about the supply and enclosed a copy of the exemption certificate. The certificate, purchase order chain, invoice, and related correspondence established that the appellant supplied the goods as a sub-contractor for the specified exempt project. The mere fact that the appellant's name was not separately mentioned in the district authority certificate was held insufficient to deny the exemption, particularly when the goods were ultimately used for the intended public project and there was no allegation of misuse. The earlier view that beneficial notifications should not be denied on such technical grounds was applied.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the exemption and the duty demand was unsustainable.

---