End-use certificate delay does not defeat exemption where substantive compliance is later met, subject to verification rights.

Delayed production of end-use certificates did not, by itself, defeat an import exemption where the certificates were ultimately furnished and verified. The procedural lapse was treated as curable because the substantive condition for the exemption was considered satisfied, and the duty demand was therefore unsustainable on that basis. The department retained the right to verify the certificates and, if they were later found unacceptable, to take fresh action in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether end-use certificates furnished after the enforcement orders could be accepted so as to sustain the exemption claimed on import and render the duty demand unsustainable.

Analysis: The appellants had obtained exemption on the undertaking to furnish end-use certificates within the stipulated period. Although the certificates were produced after issuance of the enforcement orders, they had reportedly been furnished and verified. The delay was treated as procedural, and the substantive requirement for availing the exemption was regarded as having been satisfied. The department was, however, left free to verify the certificates and, if they were found unacceptable on such verification, to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The delayed production of the end-use certificates was accepted, the demand was held unsustainable, and the appeals were allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere procedural delay in furnishing an end-use certificate cannot defeat a substantive exemption benefit where the required certificate is ultimately produced and accepted, subject to the department's right of verification.

---