Procedural filing lapse cannot defeat exemption when declaration and supporting documents were otherwise received within the jurisdictional commissionerate.

Exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-CE could not be denied merely because the declaration was addressed to the Superintendent instead of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, where the unit was located in the notified area and the declaration with supporting documents had been received within the jurisdictional commissionerate. The filing requirement was treated as a procedural mechanism to inform the department of the commencement of production, not as a condition that would defeat substantive exemption when substantial compliance was otherwise shown. On that basis, the demand and penalty were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 could be denied solely because the declaration was not filed with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in the prescribed manner.

Analysis: The exemption was available to the appellant's unit situated in the notified area and the required declaration, along with supporting documents, had been furnished to the department. Though the declaration was addressed to the Superintendent rather than the Assistant Commissioner, it was still filed within the jurisdictional commissionerate. The filing requirement was treated as intended to ensure notice of the date of commencement of production, and not as a requirement that defeat the exemption when the department had received the declaration and the assessee had otherwise complied substantially.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on this procedural lapse, and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.

---