Fiscal exemption cannot be refused for missing licence endorsement; reasons must support any denial of concessional relief.

A fiscal exemption under Notification No. 395/76-C.E. could not be denied merely because the licence lacked the prescribed endorsement, since that omission was not itself a condition of the notification. Eligibility had to be tested against the actual statutory requirements, and a bare statement of non-satisfaction was insufficient. The authority refusing the concession was required to record articulated reasons showing why the requirements were not met. Because the lower authority did not examine the basis for non-satisfaction or give proper reasons, the orders were set aside and the exemption claim was remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under Notification No. 395/76-C.E. could be denied merely because the licence did not bear the endorsement, and whether the denial of concession required a reasoned finding of non-satisfaction.

Analysis: The absence of endorsement on the licence was held not to be a condition of the notification and, by itself, could not defeat eligibility if the goods otherwise satisfied the legal requirements. The Assistant Collector was required to decide the claim on articulated grounds and not by a bare statement of non-satisfaction. Since the lower authority did not examine the basis for non-satisfaction or record proper reasons, the matter required reconsideration.

Conclusion: Denial of exemption could not rest solely on non-endorsement of the licence, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication with reasons to be recorded if the concession was again refused.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the exemption claim was directed to be reconsidered afresh by the Assistant Collector.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal exemption cannot be denied on a ground not prescribed by the notification, and any refusal of such benefit must rest on a reasoned determination of the statutory requirements.

---