Certificate requirement for concessional exemption satisfied where competent office issued it later; procedural delay did not defeat substantive relief.

Notification No. 24/91 required a certificate of installed production capacity for a cement unit to claim concessional exemption. The certificate requirement was treated as satisfied where the certificate ultimately emanated from the Director of Industries or the Director's office, including a fresh certificate replacing an earlier countersigned version. Delayed production of the certificate was not fatal when it covered the relevant period and quantity, and substantive exemption could not be denied on that procedural ground. A certificate signed by a subordinate officer functioning in the Director's office, in the Director's absence, was also not treated as defeating the benefit where the office's authority was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the certificate of installed production capacity for a cement manufacturing unit, signed initially by the Joint Director of Industries and later countersigned and replaced by a certificate signed by the Director of Industries, satisfied Notification No. 24/91 dated 25-7-1991 for availing concessional exemption of duty.

Analysis: The certificate requirement under the notification was treated as satisfied where the certificate ultimately emanated from the Director of Industries or the Office of the Director of Industries, and the record showed that the earlier certificate had been countersigned by the Director and later replaced by a fresh certificate issued by the Director specifying that the unit fell within the prescribed limits and qualified as a mini cement plant using rotary kiln technology. The later production of the certificate was not regarded as fatal when it covered the relevant period and quantity, and the Tribunal applied the principle that substantive exemption cannot be denied on the ground of delayed production of the supporting certificate. The reasoning also accepted that a certificate signed by an officer functioning in the Director's office, in the Director's absence, could not defeat the notification benefit where the authority of the office was otherwise established.

Conclusion: The certificate requirement was held to be satisfied and the exemption benefit was held to be available to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification-based certificate requirement is met where the certificate is ultimately issued by the competent departmental office for the relevant period, and substantive exemption cannot be denied merely because the supporting certificate was produced later or was initially signed by a duly functioning subordinate officer in the same office.

---