https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331551 Exemption under Notification No. 6/02-CE and Notification No. 4/06-CE was available where urea was cleared with the intention of being used as fertilizer. The relevant wording was construed to require intended use, not actual use, because the notifications contained no express condition for end-use proof or a mandatory actual-use requirement. Subsequent loss of part of the urea during transit, re-bagging, or standardisation did not defeat the exemption, since the purpose at the time of clearance remained unchanged. On that construction, the duty demand was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Apr 2017 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331551 Exemption under Notification No. 6/02-CE and Notification No. 4/06-CE was available where urea was cleared with the intention of being used as fertilizer. The relevant wording was construed to require intended use, not actual use, because the notifications contained no express condition for end-use proof or a mandatory actual-use requirement. Subsequent loss of part of the urea during transit, re-bagging, or standardisation did not defeat the exemption, since the purpose at the time of clearance remained unchanged. On that construction, the duty demand was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331551