Exemption notification compliance turns on essential particulars, and a technical failure to file a revised declaration cannot defeat the benefit.

Where an exemption notification requires a declaration, the benefit cannot be denied if the declaration already contains the essential particulars, including the manufacturer's name and address, factory location, date of option, and goods description. A further revised declaration under Rule 173B is not necessary on a purely technical objection when the material information demanded by the notification has been furnished. The document concludes that the exemption denial was unsustainable and that the demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 38/97-C.E. could be denied for alleged non-compliance with the declaration requirements and for want of a revised declaration under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The appellant had filed a declaration which was received by the office of the Assistant Commissioner and which contained the essential particulars required by the notification, namely the name and address of the manufacturer, location of the factory, date of option and description of the goods manufactured. The denial of the notification benefit was based on the view that all particulars were not furnished and that a revised declaration under Rule 173B had not been filed. On the facts recorded, the declaration already contained the material particulars demanded by the notification, and the absence of a further revised declaration did not sustain the denial.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption was unsustainable. The demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the essential particulars required by an exemption notification are duly furnished in the declaration, the benefit of the notification cannot be denied on a technical objection that a revised declaration was not separately filed.

---