Exemption by intended use: Thermax principle treated as binding, while L-6 licence observations were confined to facts.

The discussion treats the earlier Thermax Private Limited ruling as stating the broader principle that exemption or concession may be granted where the importer establishes intended use by evidence. It distinguishes the later observations on L-6 licence eligibility and C.T. 2 certificate as confined to the facts of that case, not as a general rule altering the exemption principle. The text therefore emphasizes that the binding effect lies in the earlier paragraph, while the later paragraph is read as fact-specific to the appeals before the Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier decision in Thermax Private Limited laid down a general principle that exemption or concession must be granted whenever the intended use of the material is established by the importer or by evidence, and whether the discussion in the later paragraph on L-6 licence eligibility stated a binding rule or was confined to the facts of that case.

Analysis: The operative principle was taken to be the one stated in the earlier paragraph of the precedent, namely that benefit of exemption or concession should be granted where intended use can be established by the importer or by evidence. The later discussion concerning the purchaser's possession of an L-6 licence or C.T. 2 certificate was treated as fact-specific, based on the record before the Court, and not as laying down a general rule. That paragraph was therefore read as limited to the particular appeals before the Court and not as altering the broader principle.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to have no merit and was dismissed.

---