https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217401 Exemption under Notification No. 64/95 could not be denied merely because the prescribed certificate was produced after clearance, where the invoice referred to the certificate number and date, the certificate was already in existence at removal, and its genuineness was not disputed. The delayed production was only a procedural lapse and did not negate substantive eligibility for exemption. On that basis, the demand and penalty were unsustainable, and the exemption benefit was upheld. en-us Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217401 Exemption under Notification No. 64/95 could not be denied merely because the prescribed certificate was produced after clearance, where the invoice referred to the certificate number and date, the certificate was already in existence at removal, and its genuineness was not disputed. The delayed production was only a procedural lapse and did not negate substantive eligibility for exemption. On that basis, the demand and penalty were unsustainable, and the exemption benefit was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217401