- (1.) The Court : We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have also considered the order passed by the learned Tribunal as well as by the Commissioner (Appeal-I), Central Excise, Kolkata. It appears from the fact that the petitioner should get the benefit under the Notification No. 108/95-C.E. dated 28-08-95 if the project is financed by an International Organization. Admittedly, e ven before us it was submitted that the Japan Bank was not an International Organization. It has been stated in the said Notification No. 108/95-C.E. that it must be an intern ational Organization. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise also informed the petitioner by their letter dated 31st July, 2000 as follows: "You are hereby informed that you may avail the Notification No. 108/95 as amended after observing all the conditions mentioned for the projects funded by; any other International Organization as required under clause (c)of the proviso to the above notification."
(2.) Therefore, it has been specifically stated by the said Authority that the permission was granted subject to the Notification No. 108/95.
(3.) The other point tried to be urged before us that the show cause notice was issued after 2 years. Admittedely, it appears from the order so passed by the Commissioner (Appeal -I.) that appellant petitioner tried to mislead the department that the goods were supplied to a Project of State Government which was funded by an International Organization which is also mentioned in the said order and further confirmed by the learned Tribunal.;