https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205474 An exemption notification was interpreted as not requiring an end-use certificate or prior satisfaction of the excise authorities before allowing the benefit for imported goods used in the leather industry. Since the notification contained no such condition, insistence on the certificate was unsupported. The appellants also produced material showing use of the goods in manufacture and export of leather products, which established a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. The pre-deposit requirement was therefore dispensed with and the matter was remanded for decision on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. en-us Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205474 An exemption notification was interpreted as not requiring an end-use certificate or prior satisfaction of the excise authorities before allowing the benefit for imported goods used in the leather industry. Since the notification contained no such condition, insistence on the certificate was unsupported. The appellants also produced material showing use of the goods in manufacture and export of leather products, which established a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. The pre-deposit requirement was therefore dispensed with and the matter was remanded for decision on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205474