https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340511 Concessional CVD and SAD under the exemption notifications could not be denied merely because the certificate of intended use was issued by a Superintendent rather than the jurisdictional Deputy or Assistant Commissioner. The imported LEDs were not shown to be outside the intended use, diverted from manufacture, or supported by a forged or unrelated certificate, so the substantive conditions for the benefit remained satisfied. A purely procedural defect in the issuance of the certificate was insufficient to defeat exemption otherwise available on substantive compliance. The assessee was therefore entitled to the statutory benefit, and the departmental challenge failed. en-us Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340511 Concessional CVD and SAD under the exemption notifications could not be denied merely because the certificate of intended use was issued by a Superintendent rather than the jurisdictional Deputy or Assistant Commissioner. The imported LEDs were not shown to be outside the intended use, diverted from manufacture, or supported by a forged or unrelated certificate, so the substantive conditions for the benefit remained satisfied. A purely procedural defect in the issuance of the certificate was insufficient to defeat exemption otherwise available on substantive compliance. The assessee was therefore entitled to the statutory benefit, and the departmental challenge failed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340511