https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53771 Non-production of the certificate under the first proviso to Notification No. 204/76-Cus. did not by itself disentitle the importer from exemption on re-import of repaired goods, because the certificate was only meant to show that the repairs could not be carried out in India. The Revenue did not dispute the underlying factual position, and the importer produced a certificate from the Department of Electronics indicating lack of repair facilities in India. This was treated as substantial compliance, so the omission was procedural and the exemption remained available. en-us Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:37:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53771 Non-production of the certificate under the first proviso to Notification No. 204/76-Cus. did not by itself disentitle the importer from exemption on re-import of repaired goods, because the certificate was only meant to show that the repairs could not be carried out in India. The Revenue did not dispute the underlying factual position, and the importer produced a certificate from the Department of Electronics indicating lack of repair facilities in India. This was treated as substantial compliance, so the omission was procedural and the exemption remained available. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53771