Procedural lapse in filing duty-paid statement did not bar exemption where duty payment was already disclosed in returns.

Non-compliance with the time-limit for filing a separate duty-paid statement under Notification No. 33/99 was treated as a procedural defect, not a substantive bar to exemption. The assessee's eligibility to the notification was undisputed, and the duty payment had already been reflected in the RT-12 returns filed with the Department, so the Revenue was aware of the relevant facts. Applying the principle that a procedural lapse does not defeat substantive relief where the underlying condition is otherwise satisfied, the commentary concludes that the notification benefit should not be denied on this ground and the Revenue's objection fails.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with the procedural condition in Notification No. 33/99 dated 08.07.1999, requiring a separate statement of duty paid from account current to be filed by the 7th of the next month, disentitled the assessee to the benefit of the notification.

Analysis: The assessee's eligibility to the notification was not in dispute. The only objection was that the separate statement prescribed by condition 2(a) had not been filed within time, though the payment of duty was reflected in the RT-12 returns already filed with the Department. The condition was treated as procedural, and the settled principle applied that failure to comply with a procedural requirement does not defeat substantive relief otherwise available when the Revenue is already aware of the relevant duty payment.

Conclusion: The procedural lapse did not justify denial of the benefit of the notification, and the appeal by the Revenue failed.

---