Procedural delay in certificate filing does not defeat exemption where substantive compliance under Notification No. 108/95 is shown.

Late production of the certificate required under Notification No. 108/95 did not defeat the exemption claim because the requirement was treated as procedural rather than substantive. The certificate was furnished after clearance of the goods but before adjudication, and that delayed filing was held sufficient where the transaction's genuineness and the project's requirement for the goods were otherwise established. Applying the principle that exemption cannot be denied for mere procedural lapse when substantive compliance exists, the benefit of the notification remained available and the revenue challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether late production of the certificate required under Notification No. 108/95 dated 20-11-1995 disentitled the assessee from claiming exemption.

Analysis: The certificate was produced after clearance of the goods but before adjudication. The notification required production of the certificate to establish the genuineness of the transaction and the project's requirement of the goods, but that requirement was treated as procedural. The authority followed the principle that exemption cannot be denied where there is substantive compliance, and relied on prior tribunal and apex court decisions holding that delayed submission of the certificate does not by itself defeat the exemption claim.

Conclusion: The late production of the certificate did not invalidate the exemption claim. The benefit of the notification was available to the assessee, and the revenue's challenge failed.

---