https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235970 Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE, as amended by Explanation 2 inserted by Notification No. 13/2008-CE, turned on whether the goods were actually withdrawn from the approved project. Supply to contractors executing approved projects was not, by itself, a valid basis to deny exemption, as that objection was already covered against the Revenue by binding High Court authority. Because the demand had been confirmed on a speculative basis without a specific finding of withdrawal from the project, the matter required full examination at the final hearing. On that footing, a prima facie case was found for admission of the appeal without pre-deposit and for stay of recovery during pendency. en-us Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235970 Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE, as amended by Explanation 2 inserted by Notification No. 13/2008-CE, turned on whether the goods were actually withdrawn from the approved project. Supply to contractors executing approved projects was not, by itself, a valid basis to deny exemption, as that objection was already covered against the Revenue by binding High Court authority. Because the demand had been confirmed on a speculative basis without a specific finding of withdrawal from the project, the matter required full examination at the final hearing. On that footing, a prima facie case was found for admission of the appeal without pre-deposit and for stay of recovery during pendency. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235970