Certificate under exemption notification must rest on factual verification; eligibility questions remain for the fiscal authority.

Where an exemption notification required a District Magistrate's certificate for goods donated for earthquake relief, the certifying authority had only a limited factual role: it had to verify whether the goods were intended for use in the affected areas and issue the certificate on that basis. Questions such as whether the manufacturer itself had to be the donor, or whether goods could be sold and later donated through an approved agency, concerned eligibility for exemption and fell within the excise authorities' domain. The refusal to issue the certificate was therefore unjustified, and the certificate process was directed to proceed, leaving exemption eligibility open for the fiscal authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the District Magistrate could refuse to issue the certificate required under the exemption notification on the ground that the manufacturer itself was not shown to be the donor, and whether the factual verification under the notification lay within the State authority's limited role.

Analysis: The exemption notification granted relief from excise duty for goods donated or purchased out of cash donations for earthquake relief, subject to production of a certificate from the District Magistrate that the goods had been donated for the stated purpose. The role of the District Magistrate was limited to verifying whether the goods supplied were intended for use in the earthquake-affected areas and issuing the certificate on that factual basis. Questions as to whether the manufacturer itself must be the donor, or whether the goods could be sold and thereafter donated through an approved agency, concerned interpretation and implementation of the exemption notification. Those matters fell within the domain of the excise authorities and were not for the District Magistrate to decide.

Conclusion: The refusal to issue the certificate was unjustified, and the District Magistrate was directed to examine the factual aspects and issue the necessary certificate in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent of securing the certificate process contemplated by the exemption notification, while the excise authorities retained the liberty to decide eligibility for exemption under the notification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification prescribes a certificate based on factual donation for a specified public purpose, the certifying authority must confine itself to factual verification and cannot decide questions of exemption eligibility reserved for the fiscal authority.

---