End-use customs exemption upheld where trade evidence and certificates showed imported goods were used for the specified manufacture.

Imported dumate wire was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 345/86 where competent certificates showed it was required for the specified end-use and trade material established that lead-in-wire and glass to metal seal were understood as the same product in commercial parlance. The exemption could not be denied merely because the goods were used through an intermediate stage or described differently in technical terminology. Supporting certificates from industrial authorities, manufacturers and trade literature were accepted as relevant proof of end-use and commercial identity, and the claim for customs exemption was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether dumate wire imported by the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 345/86 as goods used in the manufacture of glass to metal seal. (ii) Whether the certificates issued by the competent authorities and the trade understanding of the goods supported the appellant's claim for exemption.

Issue (i): Whether dumate wire imported by the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 345/86 as goods used in the manufacture of glass to metal seal.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption where the imported goods were certified as required for the specified purpose and were put to that use. The record contained material showing that dumate wire was used in the manufacture of lead-in-wire and that lead-in-wire was in common trade parlance the same as glass to metal seal. Even on the assumption that lead-in-wire was only an intermediate product, the imported dumate wire still went into the manufacture of glass to metal seal through that intermediate stage.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied and the issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the certificates issued by the competent authorities and the trade understanding of the goods supported the appellant's claim for exemption.

Analysis: Certificates from the competent industrial authorities stated that the unit was eligible for concessional duty and that dumate wire was used for the relevant manufacture. Independent certificates from manufacturers and trade literature also showed that lead-in-wire and glass to metal seal were treated as the same product in commercial parlance. Such material could not be ignored when deciding the claim under the exemption notification.

Conclusion: The supporting certificates and trade evidence were accepted and this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appellant was held entitled to the claimed customs exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are shown by competent certificates and trade understanding to be used for the specified exempted end-use, exemption cannot be denied merely because the goods may pass through an intermediate product stage or are described differently in technical parlance.

---