https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81191 Conditional central excise exemption under Notification No. 211/85-C.E. could not be refused merely because the assessee did not claim it at clearance or complete Chapter X and pre-clearance certificate requirements, where reliable evidence later established that the goods were used for the intended oil exploration purpose. The procedural steps were treated as safeguards to verify end use, not as grounds to defeat the exemption when the substantive condition was satisfied. Refund was therefore maintainable on proof of actual use consistent with the notification, and rejection based only on procedural non-compliance was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 24 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:24:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81191 Conditional central excise exemption under Notification No. 211/85-C.E. could not be refused merely because the assessee did not claim it at clearance or complete Chapter X and pre-clearance certificate requirements, where reliable evidence later established that the goods were used for the intended oil exploration purpose. The procedural steps were treated as safeguards to verify end use, not as grounds to defeat the exemption when the substantive condition was satisfied. Refund was therefore maintainable on proof of actual use consistent with the notification, and rejection based only on procedural non-compliance was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81191