https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50969 Late production of the certificate required under Notification No. 108/95 did not defeat the exemption claim because the requirement was treated as procedural rather than substantive. The certificate was furnished after clearance of the goods but before adjudication, and that delayed filing was held sufficient where the transaction's genuineness and the project's requirement for the goods were otherwise established. Applying the principle that exemption cannot be denied for mere procedural lapse when substantive compliance exists, the benefit of the notification remained available and the revenue challenge failed. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 21:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50969 Late production of the certificate required under Notification No. 108/95 did not defeat the exemption claim because the requirement was treated as procedural rather than substantive. The certificate was furnished after clearance of the goods but before adjudication, and that delayed filing was held sufficient where the transaction's genuineness and the project's requirement for the goods were otherwise established. Applying the principle that exemption cannot be denied for mere procedural lapse when substantive compliance exists, the benefit of the notification remained available and the revenue challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50969