Exemption under hospital equipment notification survives late essentiality certificate where substantive conditions were already met.

Notification No. 64/88-Cus was applied to hospital equipment imported for a hospital under establishment, with paragraph 4 treated as governing hospitals not yet functioning and provisos (b) to (d) as the relevant compliance route. The delayed production of the essentiality certificate after clearance did not by itself defeat the exemption where the importer had already informed Customs of the exemption claim and had initiated the certificate process before clearance. The late filing was treated as a procedural defect, not a substantive failure, so the exemption and refund claim remained available when the notification's substantive conditions were otherwise met.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. could be denied merely because the essentiality certificate was produced after clearance of the imported hospital equipment, and whether the case fell under paragraph 4 of the Table to the notification.

Analysis: Paragraph 4 of the notification governs hospitals that are yet to start functioning, while proviso (a) is confined to hospitals already in existence under paragraph 3. For hospitals in the process of being established, the relevant course is to follow provisos (b) to (d), and the importer's obligation is to set the process in motion and furnish the required certificates within the framework permitted by the notification. The record showed that the appellants had informed the Customs authorities of their intention to claim the exemption and had initiated the process for obtaining the necessary certificate before clearance. The delayed production of the certificate was treated as a procedural matter and not as a fatal defect, particularly in light of the authorities holding that non-production of the certificate at the relevant stage is a forgivable failure where the substantive conditions are otherwise met.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification could not be refused on the ground of late production of the certificate, and the claim for refund was allowable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee was entitled to consequential relief on the exemption and refund claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive conditions of an exemption notification are satisfied and the importer has duly initiated the prescribed process, delayed production of a supporting certificate does not by itself defeat the exemption if the delay is only procedural.

---