Technical defect in distribution certificates cannot defeat customs exemption where charitable use is shown and no commercial diversion is alleged.

Benefit under Notification No. 148/94 could not be denied merely because some distribution certificates lacked the proper officer's signatures. The defect was treated as a technical lacuna, since the imported goods were used for charitable purposes, the department was aware of the deficiency, had previously directed rectification, and had not cooperated in enabling compliance. Rectification was later obtained from the district authority on the available copies, which supported the importer's bona fides. In the absence of any allegation that the goods were diverted for commercial use, the missing signatures did not amount to failure of the substantive notification condition.

---

---

Issues: Whether benefit of Notification No. 148/94 could be denied for want of proper signatures on some distribution certificates when the imported goods were used for charitable purposes and the deficiency was only technical.

Analysis: The only ground for denial was the absence of signatures by the proper officer on certain distribution certificates. The record showed that the department had been aware of this defect, had earlier directed return of the certificates for rectification, and yet had not cooperated in enabling compliance. The appellants later obtained rectification from the concerned district authority on the available copies, supporting their bona fides. There was no allegation that the imported goods were diverted for commercial use. In these circumstances, the defect was treated as a technical lacuna and not a failure of the substantive condition of the notification.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification could not be denied on the ground of the defective signatures, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---