Exemption option compliance: a Rule 173B declaration can suffice where no separate form is prescribed for notification benefit.

Where a notification does not prescribe a specific form for exercising an option, a declaration filed under the applicable procedural rule may be sufficient if it clearly shows the assessee's intent to claim the exemption. The Tribunal held that filing a declaration under Rule 173B adequately evidenced the option to avail Notification No. 9/99-C.E., and the benefit could not be denied merely because no separate prescribed proforma had been used. In the absence of any statutory requirement for a distinct option form, and following prior decisions on the same notification, the demand was not sustainable and relief to the assessee was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether filing a declaration under Rule 173B was sufficient compliance to indicate the assessee's option to avail the benefit of Notification No. 9/99-C.E., and whether the benefit could be denied for want of a prescribed option form.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that no prescribed proforma for exercising the option had been laid down under the notification. It held that the declaration filed under Rule 173B adequately evidenced the assessee's intention to opt for the notification benefit. In the absence of any statutory requirement for a separate form, and following prior decisions on the same notification, the demand could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The declaration under Rule 173B was sufficient compliance, and the denial of the notification benefit was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's challenge failed, and the order granting relief to the assessee stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification does not prescribe a particular mode or form for exercising an option, a declaration filed under the applicable procedural rule may constitute sufficient compliance if it clearly manifests the assessee's intent to avail the exemption benefit.

---