Exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. cannot be denied for lack of a separate option form when Rule 173B declaration was filed.

Exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. could not be denied merely because the assessee did not file a separate prescribed option form, where a declaration under Rule 173B had already been filed on 1-4-99. The notification did not require any specific pro forma for exercising the option, and no procedural defect was shown that could override substantive entitlement to the exemption. On that basis, the appellate view allowing the exemption for the relevant period was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. dated 28-2-99 could be denied for the period 1-4-99 to 24-5-99 merely because the assessee did not file a prescribed option, when a declaration under Rule 173B had been filed.

Analysis: The exemption was otherwise admissible and the notification did not prescribe any specific pro forma for exercising the option. The assessee had filed a declaration under Rule 173B on 1-4-99, and there was no procedural requirement showing that the absence of a separate option form could defeat the exemption. The issue was treated as settled in favour of the assessee, and no infirmity was found in the appellate finding allowing the exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the ground of filing a separate prescribed option, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---