Substantive compliance under exemption notification prevails over delayed certificate filing when all core conditions are met.

Exemption under Notification No. 108/95 could not be refused where the prescribed certificates were genuine, countersigned by the Principal Secretary, and the substantive conditions for supplies to specified projects were met. The only defect was that the certificate was furnished after clearance and before the show cause notice. That procedural delay was treated as insufficient to defeat otherwise complete compliance with the notification, so denial of duty exemption on a technical ground was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under Notification No. 108/95 could be denied merely because the required certificate was produced subsequently, despite the certificate being otherwise proper and the exemption conditions being substantially satisfied.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption to supplies made to specified projects subject to production of a certificate from the Project Implementing Authority countersigned by the Principal Secretary or Secretary (Finance) of the concerned State Government. The certificates for the respondent's supplies were signed by the Executive Head of the Project Implementing Authority and countersigned by the Principal Secretary. Their genuineness was not in dispute. The only objection was that the proper certificate was produced after clearance and before issuance of the show cause notice. On these facts, the procedural delay in furnishing the certificate could not outweigh the substantive compliance with the notification conditions.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on a technical or procedural ground, and the denial of duty exemption was not sustainable.

---