Customs exemption cannot be denied by circular-imposed end-use certificate requirement when the notification imposes none.

Exemption under Sr. No. 108(1) of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. could not be denied for failure to produce an end-use certificate, because the entry itself imposed no such condition. A circular cannot add a requirement that is absent from the notification, and to that extent a departmental circular inconsistent with the notification is impermissible. The goods were also shown to have been sold to leather manufacturers, supporting use in the leather industry. The practical effect is that the exemption remained available and denial solely for want of an end-use certificate was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under Sr. No. 108(1) of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. dated 02.06.1998 could be denied for non-production of an end-use certificate when no such condition was stipulated in that entry.

Analysis: The entry at Sr. No. 108(1) was found to be unconditional, and the notification did not prescribe production of an end-use certificate. A condition not contained in the notification could not be introduced through a circular. The circular relied upon by the department was therefore treated as inconsistent with the notification and impermissible to the extent it added a fresh requirement. The goods were also shown to have been sold to leather manufacturers, supporting the intended use for the leather industry.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption for want of an end-use certificate was unjustified, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal exemption condition cannot be added by circular when the notification itself does not impose that condition, and exemption cannot be denied on the basis of such an requirement.

---