https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54819 Exemption under Notification No. 108/95 was held available where goods supplied to an intermediary contractor were ultimately used for a UNICEF project, because direct delivery to the project authority was not treated as essential on the facts. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund. The extended limitation period for duty demand was also rejected because the record did not show suppression of material facts or intent to evade duty; clearance details had been disclosed to the department. The order against the assessee was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:36:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54819 Exemption under Notification No. 108/95 was held available where goods supplied to an intermediary contractor were ultimately used for a UNICEF project, because direct delivery to the project authority was not treated as essential on the facts. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund. The extended limitation period for duty demand was also rejected because the record did not show suppression of material facts or intent to evade duty; clearance details had been disclosed to the department. The order against the assessee was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54819