Procedural delay in filing transport certificates did not defeat refund eligibility where substantive notification conditions were met.

Refund under Notification No. 59/78-C.E. could not be denied merely because State Transport Authority certificates were filed after the prescribed period, where the substantive condition of registration for use solely on hire had been satisfied. The time limit for furnishing the certificates was procedural, not a condition going to eligibility, and the later filing cured the lapse. The concessional benefit therefore remained available, and the refund claim could not be rejected on delay alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Notification No. 59/78-C.E. could be denied merely because the certificates from the State Transport Authority were furnished beyond the prescribed time, when the substantive condition of registration for use solely on hire had been satisfied.

Analysis: The refund claims had earlier been held to be within limitation, and the remaining question was whether non-production of the certificates within three months was fatal. The requirement of furnishing the certificate went to the substantive eligibility under the notification, but the three-month time limit for filing it was only procedural. Once the appellants had ultimately obtained and filed the certificates, the benefit of the concessional notification could not be denied on the ground of delay alone, particularly when the notification was later superseded by Notification No. 107/78 granting a blanket concession.

Conclusion: The delay in furnishing the certificates was only a procedural lapse, the substantive condition stood complied with, and the refund could not be rejected on that ground.

---