Prospective interpretation of exemption notification upheld for project goods supplied to World Bank financed works.

Notification No. 108/95-CE exemption remained available for goods supplied against project certificates for execution of World Bank financed projects. Explanation 2 inserted by Notification No. 13/2008-CE was held prospective and could not be used to deny exemption for clearances made before its insertion. For the post-insertion period, the explanation was construed to mean only that project goods must not be withdrawn during execution of the project; it did not require the goods to become a permanent part of the completed project. On that construction, the exemption applied and the adverse orders and demand were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 for supply of tippers, tractors, compactors and tyre rollers to contractors executing World Bank financed projects, notwithstanding the insertion of Explanation 2 by Notification No. 13/2008-CE dated 01.03.2008.

Analysis: The clear factual position was that the goods were cleared against project certificates for use in execution of the specified projects and were in fact used by the contractors in such projects. The central dispute was the meaning and effect of Explanation 2. The Tribunal followed the earlier precedent holding that the explanation is prospective and cannot be applied to deny exemption for clearances made prior to its insertion. For the post-insertion period also, the Tribunal accepted the interpretation that the explanation only prohibits withdrawal of the goods during execution of the project and does not require the goods to become a permanent part of the project structure after completion. On that construction, the goods used for execution of the project remained eligible for exemption.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995. The demand and related adverse orders could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim succeeded on the correct construction of the notification and its explanation, resulting in setting aside of the impugned orders and grant of consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Explanation 2 to Notification No. 108/95-CE is prospective and, properly construed, only requires that project goods not be withdrawn during execution of the project; it does not mandate that the goods must permanently remain part of the project after completion.

---