End-use proof under exemption notifications remains essential for goods claimed for the leather industry.

An importer claiming exemption under a notification for goods used in the leather industry must prove that the imported goods were meant for the specified end use. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of similarly worded exemption language and held that the absence of an express end-use certificate condition did not remove the claimant's burden to establish intended use. The contrary view of the appellate authority was therefore not sustainable, and the exemption claim was remitted for fresh adjudication on the question of intended end use after hearing the respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importer seeking the benefit of an exemption notification for goods used in the leather industry must establish that the imported goods were meant for the intended end use.

Analysis: The exemption was available for goods for use in the leather industry. Relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation of a similarly worded notification, the Tribunal held that a person claiming the benefit of such notification must show that the imported goods were meant for the purpose specified in the notification. The absence of a specific end-use certificate condition in the notification did not dispense with the need to prove intended use.

Conclusion: The importer was required to adduce evidence that the goods were meant for use in the leather industry, and the contrary view of the appellate authority could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim was remitted for fresh adjudication on the question of intended end use, after giving the respondent an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant to the benefit of an exemption notification must satisfy the prescribed end-use requirement and prove that the goods were imported for the intended purpose of the notification.

---