End-use certificate not required where exemption notification itself imposes no such condition

Notification No. 31/88 did not impose any direct or indirect condition requiring proof of end-use for the bulk drug, so the exemption could not be denied for absence of an end-use certificate. Administrative circulars could not add a substantive precondition where the notification itself did not require one, and the goods were not covered by the later circular relied on by the Revenue. The exemption was therefore available without end-use certification, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 31/88 was available only on production of an end-use certificate for the impugned bulk drug and whether the absence of such a certificate justified denial of the exemption.

Analysis: The notification itself did not directly or indirectly prescribe any condition requiring proof of end-use. Although Board circulars had, at different times, indicated administrative modalities for insisting on end-use certificates in respect of certain bulk drugs, the goods in question were not covered by the later circular relied upon by the Revenue. The controlling factor was the wording of the notification, and not an additional condition introduced through administrative instructions. The notification was treated as analogous to the exemption considered by the Bombay High Court, where end-use was held not to be a precondition for the benefit when the notification did not so provide.

Conclusion: No end-use certificate was required under Notification No. 31/88, and the exemption could not be denied on that basis. The Revenue's appeal failed.

---