Strict proof for project-linked exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. was required, and ambiguity defeated the claim.

Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. for goods claimed to be required for an Asian Development Bank-financed project was available only on production of the prescribed project certificate linking the goods to that specified project. The certificate had to be issued by the Head of the Project Implementing Authority and countersigned by the notified Government officer, and the claimant had to clearly prove direct supply for the project. As the goods were not shown to have been supplied directly for the project and the certificate did not identify the claimant as the supplier, the exemption claim failed. Any ambiguity in exemption entitlement is construed against the claimant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. for goods stated to be required for a project financed by the Asian Development Bank.

Analysis: The notification required production of a certificate from the Head of the Project Implementing Authority, countersigned by the prescribed Government officer, certifying that the goods were required for execution of the specified financed project. The appellants did not establish that the goods in dispute were supplied directly for the project, and the certificate produced did not identify the appellants as the supplier of the goods in question. An exemption claim must be clearly proved by the person invoking it, and any ambiguity operates against the claimant.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the exemption, and the denial of benefit was correct.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the required project certificate linking the disputed goods to the financed project was not produced.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant to an exemption notification must strictly satisfy the prescribed conditions and prove clear coverage; in case of doubt, the exemption cannot be granted.

---