End-use certificates satisfied exemption conditions, so the remand-based verification upheld the assessee's entitlement to exemption.

End-use certificates that clearly established use of the goods as parts, accessories, scientific and technical instruments, and for the specified plant and system satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 10/97-C.E., so the assessee remained entitled to exemption. The remand was confined to verification of those certificates, and the Tribunal did not exceed that scope in accepting them. The High Court held that the Commissioner had to assess the certificates against the notification, and once the certified end use was clear, the exemption could not be denied. No substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 10/97-C.E. on the basis of end-use certificates and whether the Tribunal exceeded the scope of the earlier remand.

Analysis: The remand by the Tribunal was confined to scrutiny and verification of the certificates produced by the assessee. The certificates, including the certificate from BARC, ly stated that the goods were used as parts, accessories, scientific and technical instruments, and for the specified plant and system. On that material, the Tribunal held that the conditions of the exemption notification were satisfied. The High Court found that the Commissioner had to verify the certificates in the light of the notification and, once the end use was certified in clear terms, the assessee became entitled to the exemption.

Conclusion: The Tribunal correctly allowed the assessee's claim to exemption and its order was neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where end-use certificates clearly satisfy the conditions of an exemption notification and a remand is confined to verification of those certificates, the exemption cannot be denied and no substantial question of law arises.

---