End-use exemption under Notification 108/95-C.E. cannot be denied for delayed or misnamed certificate where eligible use is undisputed.

Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. was treated as a substantive end-use benefit for goods supplied to the United Nations or an international organisation, so the certificate requirement operated only as a procedural safeguard against misuse. Where it was undisputed that the goods were actually supplied for the eligible project, delayed production of the certificate could not by itself defeat the exemption. The same approach applied where the certificate was issued in the supplier's name rather than the manufacturer's name, because the notification did not require that formality and the admitted eligible use remained the decisive factor. On these facts, the exemption remained available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could be denied only because the requisite certificate was produced after clearance of the goods. (ii) Whether the exemption could be denied because the certificate was issued in the name of the supplier and not in the name of the manufacturer, when the goods were admittedly used for the eligible project.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could be denied only because the requisite certificate was produced after clearance of the goods.

Analysis: The notification was treated as granting substantive exemption to goods supplied to the United Nations or international organizations, and the certificate requirement was viewed as a safeguard to prevent misuse. Since the Revenue did not dispute that the goods were in fact supplied to the eligible recipient, the timing of production of the certificate was held to be only a procedural requirement and not a ground to deny the exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied merely because the certificate was produced belatedly; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the exemption could be denied because the certificate was issued in the name of the supplier and not in the name of the manufacturer, when the goods were admittedly used for the eligible project.

Analysis: The notification was held to be an end-use exemption meant for goods actually used in the eligible project. On the admitted facts that the goods were used for the project and the certificate served only to verify such use, there was found to be no stipulation requiring the certificate to be in the name of the supplier. The objection was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the ground that the certificate was issued in the supplier's name; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification, and the Revenue's challenge failed on the substantive eligibility objections raised.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification is intended to protect a substantive end-use benefit, compliance with a certificate requirement is procedural and cannot defeat exemption when the eligible use is otherwise undisputed.

---