https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175098 Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE was denied because the prescribed certificates were issued in the name of the project contractor or beneficiary, not the manufacturer or supplier of the goods. The Tribunal noted conflicting prior decisions on whether such certification defect defeats the exemption, with one line denying relief and another granting it on similar facts. Because of this divergence, the applicants were found to have established a prima facie case for interim protection. Waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery of duty and penalties was stayed pending disposal of the appeals. en-us Tue, 23 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 11:37:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175098 Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE was denied because the prescribed certificates were issued in the name of the project contractor or beneficiary, not the manufacturer or supplier of the goods. The Tribunal noted conflicting prior decisions on whether such certification defect defeats the exemption, with one line denying relief and another granting it on similar facts. Because of this divergence, the applicants were found to have established a prima facie case for interim protection. Waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery of duty and penalties was stayed pending disposal of the appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175098