Substantial compliance with exemption intimation requirements accepted where Rule 173B declaration disclosed the option and relevant particulars.

Substantial compliance with the intimation requirement under Notification No. 38/97-C.E. was accepted where the assessee's Rule 173B declaration was addressed to the departmental officer, stated the intention to avail the exemption, and contained the relevant particulars. A separate written intimation to the Assistant Commissioner was not treated as indispensable because the declaration itself conveyed the option and fulfilled the substance of the prescribed notice. The departmental objection based solely on the absence of a distinct intimation was rejected, and the exemption was held available on the basis of the existing declaration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 38/97-C.E. despite not giving a separate written intimation to the Assistant Commissioner, when the declaration filed under Rule 173B contained the relevant particulars and disclosed the intention to avail the exemption.

Analysis: The Notification required intimation to the Assistant Commissioner of the option to avail the exemption. The declaration filed by the assessee under Rule 173B was addressed to the departmental officer and specifically stated that the assessee intended to avail the benefit of the Notification. It also contained the particulars required for the intimation. In these circumstances, the departmental objection that no separate written intimation was given was not accepted, as the requirement stood substantially complied with.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 38/97-C.E., and the denial of benefit on the ground of absence of a separate intimation was incorrect.

---