TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod from 01.03.1986 to 19.11.1987, wherein the appellant were charged to have not discharging of their duty liability on the product Di-calcium Phosphate on the ground that appellant did not produce certificate from the Drug Controller of India as regards the eligibility of the said product for the benefit of Notification No 234/86-CE. Appellant contested the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellant and confirmed demand and also imposed penalties and also demanded interest on the amounts confirmed. 4. Learned counsel drew our attention to the fact that appellants were pursuing with the Drug Controller of India for issuance of certificate from the date they were infor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons Limited - 2005 (189) ELT 401 (SC) has clearly held that substantial provisions were stand complied with when once the certificate, which is required is produced before the authorities. 5. Learned DR reiterates the findings given in the adjudication order. 6. On careful considering the submissions made by both the sides, we find that it is not in dispute that appellant s product Di-calcium Phosphate is a bulk drug and is eligible for the benefit of Notification No 234/86-CE dated 03.04.1986, subject to the condition that certificate from the Drug Controller of Govt. of India is produced within a period as the said officer may allow. It is undisputed that the appellant was pursuing with the Drug Controller of India for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the appellant was vigoursly pursuing with the concerned authorities for issuance of certificate. The said certificate having been issued belatedly by the authorities, in our view, cannot be held against the appellant for denying them the benefit, for which otherwise he is eligible. 9. We are fortifying in our above view by the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of IFFCO vs. UOI (Supra), the ratio of the same as contained in Para 9, is respectfully reproduced:- It is thus clear that an exemption Notification has to be construed in the light of the contents thereof. As aforesaid the Notification at Annexure `A postulates three conditions for earning the exemption provided thereunder. The first two condi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted time-limit and the sufficient proof cannot be furnished within the stipulated time-limit. It may be that the receipted challan is received within the time-limit and yet it gets destroyed before it is produced before the proper officer and its duplicate may not be received within the stipulated time-limit. A condition, the fulfilment of which depends partly on the person and partly on the outside agency, cannot be said to be a mandatory condition. It has to be treated as a directory condition and its substantial compliance would be sufficient to earn the benefit for which such condition is prescribed. We are therefore of the view that the first two conditions in the Notification at Annexure `A for the purpose of claiming the exemption th....