https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117862 Notification No. 203/92-Cus could not be denied merely because the certificate of non-availment of input credit was not countersigned by Central Excise authorities. The importer had produced a supporting manufacturer's certificate stating that no Modvat credit had been taken, and the revenue had not shown that the certificate was false or otherwise verified it adversely. The exemption could not be refused mechanically on the countersignature defect alone; the certificate's correctness had to be examined on the merits. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after verification of the certificate and after granting the importer a hearing. en-us Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:23:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117862 Notification No. 203/92-Cus could not be denied merely because the certificate of non-availment of input credit was not countersigned by Central Excise authorities. The importer had produced a supporting manufacturer's certificate stating that no Modvat credit had been taken, and the revenue had not shown that the certificate was false or otherwise verified it adversely. The exemption could not be refused mechanically on the countersignature defect alone; the certificate's correctness had to be examined on the merits. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after verification of the certificate and after granting the importer a hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117862