End-use certificate for customs exemption may be considered later when full duty was paid and the notification set no time limit.

Exemption under Notification No. 46/85 could not be refused solely because the end-use certificate was not produced at the import stage, where full duty had been paid and the certificate was later available. The bond and certificate requirements were treated as revenue-protection safeguards, and payment of full duty satisfied the bond's protective purpose. As the notification did not prescribe a time limit for actual consumption of the imported materials, the subsequent certificate had to be examined afresh. The refund claim was therefore remanded for de novo consideration, while the question of unjust enrichment was left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under Notification No. 46/85 could be considered on the basis of the end-use certificate produced after import, where the importer had paid full duty and the only dispute was non-production of the certificate at the earlier stage.

Analysis: The notification required execution of a bond and production of an end-use certificate to safeguard revenue. The bond requirement was treated as a revenue-protection measure, and payment of full duty was regarded as having served that purpose. The end-use certificate could only be produced after the imported materials were actually used in manufacture, and the notification did not prescribe a time limit for such consumption. On the facts, the certificate was now available and had to be examined afresh, so the earlier rejection based solely on non-production of the certificate could not stand.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to reconsideration of the refund claim on the basis of the subsequently produced end-use certificate, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration. The question of unjust enrichment was left open.

---