End-use certificate requirements in exemption notifications depend on the wording: not implied where absent, mandatory where expressly prescribed.

An exemption notification that lists bulk drugs and ties eligibility to the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 cannot be read to impose an end-use certificate requirement where none is expressed; exemption under Notification No. 31/88-C.E. therefore depended only on whether the goods answered the notified description, and denial for want of such certificate was unsustainable. By contrast, Notification No. 234/86-C.E. expressly required a Drugs Controller certificate covering cumulative conditions, including that the goods were bulk drugs normally used for diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease and were used as such or as an ingredient in a formulation; compliance with those conditions was essential, and exemption was unavailable without certification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether end-use certificates were required for availing exemption under Notification No. 31/88-C.E.; (ii) Whether end-use certificates were required for availing exemption under Notification No. 234/86-C.E.

Issue (i): Whether end-use certificates were required for availing exemption under Notification No. 31/88-C.E.

Analysis: The notification exempted bulk drugs listed in the table annexed thereto, subject to conformity with the meaning assigned under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987. It did not prescribe any condition relating to use, non-use, or production of an end-use certificate. The benefit of exemption therefore depended only on whether the goods answered the description in the notification and the relevant Order.

Conclusion: End-use certificates were not required for exemption under Notification No. 31/88-C.E., and the finding to the contrary was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether end-use certificates were required for availing exemption under Notification No. 234/86-C.E.

Analysis: The proviso to the notification required a certificate from the Drugs Controller certifying that the goods were bulk drugs within the meaning of the Explanation, were normally used for diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease, and were used as such or as an ingredient in any formulation. These were distinct cumulative conditions, and the third requirement necessarily contemplated actual physical use as such or as an ingredient in a formulation. In the absence of such certification, the exemption could not be granted.

Conclusion: End-use certificates were required for exemption under Notification No. 234/86-C.E., and the demand for clearances without such certificates was rightly upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent that exemption under Notification No. 31/88-C.E. could not be denied for want of an end-use certificate, while the requirement of certification under Notification No. 234/86-C.E. was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification contains no condition requiring proof of end use, such a requirement cannot be read into it; but where the notification expressly mandates a specified certificate and cumulative conditions, compliance with those conditions is essential to claim the exemption.

---