2004 (1) TMI 561

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ojha, for the Respondent. [Order]. In this appeal the Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original and allowed the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-1995 amended by Notification No. 40/99-C.E., dated 2-11-1999 to the respondents. 2. I have heard both the sides and gone thr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case of the respondents apparently squarely stands covered by proviso (a) of the above said notification under which no certificate from the TRC, Chennai was required to be produced by the respondents, for having supplied the goods to WHO. The plea of the Revenue that since supply of the goods were made to TRC and not to WHO directly the requisite certificate from TRC, issued by the Competent Offi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X