https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169992 Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could not be denied merely because the prescribed certificates were not issued in the supplier's name, where the goods were admittedly supplied for identified Asian Development Bank-financed projects, the required project and financing certificates were produced, and there was no allegation of diversion. The operative principle applied was that substantive compliance with the notification prevailed over the name discrepancy in the certificates. On those facts, the exemption remained available. en-us Wed, 03 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 May 2015 11:10:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169992 Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could not be denied merely because the prescribed certificates were not issued in the supplier's name, where the goods were admittedly supplied for identified Asian Development Bank-financed projects, the required project and financing certificates were produced, and there was no allegation of diversion. The operative principle applied was that substantive compliance with the notification prevailed over the name discrepancy in the certificates. On those facts, the exemption remained available. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169992