Excise exemption cannot be denied for a clerical error in the declaration where intention to claim the benefit was clear.

Excise exemption under Notification No. 49/2003 could not be denied solely because the pre-clearance declaration mentioned the wrong notification number and date, where the declaration clearly showed an intention to claim the correct benefit and the department understood it as such. Compliance with the substantive conditions of the notification was determinative, and a clerical mistake in recital of particulars did not defeat the exemption. The benefit of the notification was therefore available to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 49/2003 dated 10th June, 2003 could be denied merely because the declaration filed before first clearance mentioned an incorrect notification number and date, though the declaration clearly conveyed an intention to claim the exemption and was understood by the department as such.

Analysis: The declaration was admittedly filed before the first clearance and its purport was to claim the benefit of the exemption notification. The department accepted and acted upon the declaration on that basis. The governing requirement was compliance with the conditions of the notification, not rigid insistence on a perfect recital of the notification number and date. A mistaken reference to another notification in the declaration, when the intention to claim the correct exemption was otherwise clear, did not defeat the substantive benefit.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the basis of the clerical mistake in mentioning the notification particulars, and the benefit of the notification was available to the assessee.

---