https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86311 Exemption under Notification No. 46/85 could not be refused solely because the end-use certificate was not produced at the import stage, where full duty had been paid and the certificate was later available. The bond and certificate requirements were treated as revenue-protection safeguards, and payment of full duty satisfied the bond's protective purpose. As the notification did not prescribe a time limit for actual consumption of the imported materials, the subsequent certificate had to be examined afresh. The refund claim was therefore remanded for de novo consideration, while the question of unjust enrichment was left open. en-us Thu, 19 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:35:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86311 Exemption under Notification No. 46/85 could not be refused solely because the end-use certificate was not produced at the import stage, where full duty had been paid and the certificate was later available. The bond and certificate requirements were treated as revenue-protection safeguards, and payment of full duty satisfied the bond's protective purpose. As the notification did not prescribe a time limit for actual consumption of the imported materials, the subsequent certificate had to be examined afresh. The refund claim was therefore remanded for de novo consideration, while the question of unjust enrichment was left open. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 19 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86311