Intended end-use governs tariff classification and exemption when no actual end-use proof is required.

Micro cellular rubber sheets were held classifiable under Heading 4008.11 because the phrase "used in the manufacture of" was construed as referring to the intended or ordinary use of the goods, not proof of actual end use in every clearance. Applying its earlier decision and Pololight Industries, the Tribunal held that the exemption under Notification No. 18/95-CE could not be denied merely for absence of buyer end-use certificates where the tariff entry itself did not impose such a requirement. The Revenue also failed to show that the goods were put to any other use, so the appellant was entitled to the notification benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the micro cellular rubber sheets cleared by the appellant were classifiable under Heading 4008.11 as goods used in the manufacture of footwear soles and heels, and whether the benefit of Notification No. 18/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 could be denied for want of proof of actual end use by the buyers.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied its earlier decision in the appellant's own case and the ruling in Pololight Industries. It held that the expression "used in the manufacture of" in the relevant tariff entry refers to the intended or ordinary use of the goods, not proof of actual end use in every clearance. It further held that the Revenue had not produced evidence to show that the goods were actually put to some other use, and that no end-use certificate was required where the tariff entry itself did not prescribe such a condition.

Conclusion: The goods were held classifiable under Heading 4008.11 and the appellant was held entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 18/95-CE dated 16.03.1995.

---