Exemption cannot be denied for procedural lapses when substantive notification conditions are met and goods are used for the intended project.

Exemption under Notification No. 108/1995-C.E. could not be refused where the substantive conditions were satisfied and the goods were actually received at the project site and used for the intended project. The objections concerned only procedural defects in the manner and forum of submitting the certificate and the form of consignment, which did not defeat the exemption when substantive compliance was established. The impugned order was set aside and the exemption benefit was sustained, with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under Notification No. 108/1995-C.E. could be denied for procedural defects despite substantial compliance with the notification conditions and use of the goods for the intended project.

Analysis: The relevant consideration was whether the appellants had met the substance of the exemption conditions. The record showed that the goods were received at the project site and used for the project purpose, and the objections raised by the department related to the manner and forum of submission of the certificate and the form of consignment. These defects were procedural in nature and did not negate the substantive fulfillment of the notification requirements.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the ground of such procedural deviations, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the notification.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification cannot be denied where its substantive conditions are fulfilled and the goods are actually used for the intended project, merely because of procedural irregularities in compliance.

---