Project import exemption upheld for drinking water supply goods; identical facts bound later proceedings and defeated duty demand.

Certification and material on record showing clearance of goods for a notified drinking water supply project under international competitive bidding supported exemption from excise duty. The Tribunal applied its earlier decision in the assessee's own case, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, and held that exemption could not be denied merely on Revenue's allegation in the absence of contrary evidence. Because the present demand arose on identical facts, the earlier binding finding governed the subsequent period, making the demand for duty, interest and penalties unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of excise duty, interest and penalties could be sustained when the earlier decision in the assessee's own case on identical facts had held that the goods cleared for a drinking water supply project under international competitive bidding were eligible for exemption.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the earlier dispute had already been decided in favour of the assessee on the basis that the goods were meant for a notified drinking water supply project and were supported by certification from the appropriate authority. The earlier order had held that, in the absence of contrary evidence, exemption could not be denied merely on the Revenue's allegation that the goods were not covered by the relevant project import entry. That decision had also been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Since the present demand arose on the same factual foundation, the Tribunal applied the earlier binding determination to the present period.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are established by certification and material on record to have been cleared for a notified drinking water supply project under international competitive bidding, exemption cannot be denied in the absence of contrary evidence, and the same factual finding binds subsequent proceedings on identical facts.

---