Water treatment plant exemption cannot be denied when end-use is proved and district certificate is not in the manufacturer's name.

Exemption for goods used in a water treatment plant under Notification No. 6/2001-CE, as amended, could not be denied on a technical objection where the District Collector's certificate was issued for the eligible purpose and actual end-use was undisputed. The notification required certification that the goods were cleared for the entitled use; it did not insist that the certificate be issued in the manufacturer's name. As the cables were admitted to have been used in the water treatment plant and there was no allegation of diversion or misuse, the exemption denial was unjustified and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under Notification No. 6/2001-CE, as amended by Notification No. 47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002, could be denied merely because the District Collector's certificate was not issued in the name of the appellant, although the goods were admittedly used for the eligible water treatment plant.

Analysis: The exemption applied to machinery, appliances, components, parts and similar goods required for setting up a water treatment plant, subject to production of a certificate from the jurisdictional District Collector that the goods were cleared for the entitled purpose. The goods in question were cables used in the water treatment plant and there was no allegation of diversion or misuse. The condition in the notification required only that the certificate be issued by the jurisdictional District Collector for goods cleared for the eligible use; it did not require that the certificate must be in the name of the manufacturer. Since the certificate was issued in favour of the person who procured the goods and the intended use was undisputed, denial of exemption on that technical ground was unjustified.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the ground that the certificate was not in the appellant's name; the denial was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---