https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445165 Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could not be denied on a mere presumption that hydraulic excavators supplied to project contractors might be withdrawn before project completion. The decisive inquiry was whether the goods were actually removed during execution of the UN or internationally financed project, and the record contained no evidence of the removal date, project completion date, or any concrete diversion of the machinery. Because the demand was confirmed without proof of breach of the notification condition, the exemption remained available. The stated interpretation also recognised that capital goods may be withdrawn after completion of the project, but not during its execution. en-us Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Nov 2023 18:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445165 Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could not be denied on a mere presumption that hydraulic excavators supplied to project contractors might be withdrawn before project completion. The decisive inquiry was whether the goods were actually removed during execution of the UN or internationally financed project, and the record contained no evidence of the removal date, project completion date, or any concrete diversion of the machinery. Because the demand was confirmed without proof of breach of the notification condition, the exemption remained available. The stated interpretation also recognised that capital goods may be withdrawn after completion of the project, but not during its execution. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445165