Intended use under concessional import notifications governs relief; transit loss alone does not defeat the benefit absent diversion.

The expression "for use" in a concessional import notification refers to intended use, not strict proof of actual consumption in every case. Where a portion of imported crude palm oil was short received, damaged in transit, or not physically consumed, the concession could not be denied in the absence of evidence that the goods were diverted to another purpose. The absence of diversion was material, and the notification benefit remained available on the facts found.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 16/2000, granting concessional duty on crude palm oil imported for use in the manufacture of vanaspati, could be denied merely because part of the imported quantity was short received, damaged in transit, or otherwise not actually consumed in manufacture.

Analysis: The notification was construed in the light of the settled principle that the expression "for use" means intended for use, not actual physical consumption in every case. Where a small part of the imported goods is lost or damaged in transit and the importer shows no diversion to another purpose, denial of the concession is not justified. The absence of evidence that the oil was diverted for any other use was material to the decision.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification could not be denied on the facts found, and the revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For an exemption or concessional notification using the expression "for use", the decisive test is intended use, and the benefit cannot be denied absent proof that the imported goods were diverted to another purpose.

---