https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112869 Notification No. 108/95-C.E. as amended was held applicable where goods were supplied on WHO's order and delivered at TRC, Chennai at WHO's instance, because the supply was made for a WHO-funded project and WHO certified that the goods belonged to it. On those facts, proviso (a) to the notification was satisfied. Proviso (b)(ii), requiring a certificate from TRC issued by the competent officer, applied only where the supply was made to TRC in the relevant sense and was not attracted. The assessee was therefore entitled to the notification benefit, and the objection based on absence of a TRC certificate failed. en-us Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 May 2012 12:53:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112869 Notification No. 108/95-C.E. as amended was held applicable where goods were supplied on WHO's order and delivered at TRC, Chennai at WHO's instance, because the supply was made for a WHO-funded project and WHO certified that the goods belonged to it. On those facts, proviso (a) to the notification was satisfied. Proviso (b)(ii), requiring a certificate from TRC issued by the competent officer, applied only where the supply was made to TRC in the relevant sense and was not attracted. The assessee was therefore entitled to the notification benefit, and the objection based on absence of a TRC certificate failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112869