Exemption notification conditions must be strictly complied with, and later amendment will not apply retrospectively without clear wording.

Exemption notification conditions requiring certification by the specified authority on personal satisfaction in each case were substantive, not procedural, so strict compliance was necessary to claim concessional customs duty; belated procurement of the certificate did not satisfy the requirement. The amending notification was not retrospective because it contained no indication of backward operation, and it could not validate goods already cleared before its issuance. The exemption claim therefore failed on both grounds, and the departmental order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conditions attached to Notification No. 232/83 were substantive and had to be strictly complied with for availing concessional customs duty; (ii) whether the amending Notification No. 285/83 operated retrospectively so as to cover goods already cleared before its issuance.

Issue (i): Whether the conditions attached to Notification No. 232/83 were substantive and had to be strictly complied with for availing concessional customs duty.

Analysis: The notification required a certificate by the specified authority, on personal satisfaction, and in each case that the importer was an actual user (industrial). These requirements were treated as essential to the grant of the exemption and not as mere procedural formalities. The certificate was not issued by the prescribed authority in the manner required, and the belated procurement of the certificate did not amount to compliance.

Conclusion: The conditions were substantive and were not complied with; the assessee was not entitled to the concession on substantial compliance grounds.

Issue (ii): Whether the amending Notification No. 285/83 operated retrospectively so as to cover goods already cleared before its issuance.

Analysis: The amending notification contained no indication of retrospective operation. The relevant certificate was obtained after clearance of the goods, and the applications for the certificate were made only after the material date of clearance. On that footing, the later amendment and the certificate could not be treated as validating the earlier import clearance.

Conclusion: The amending notification was not retrospective and did not cover the earlier clearance of goods.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed on both the nature of the notification conditions and the non-retrospective effect of the amendment, so the departmental order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification prescribes certification by a specified authority on personal satisfaction in each case, those requirements are substantive conditions for availing the benefit, and a later amendment will not apply retrospectively unless the notification clearly so provides.

---