Beneficial exemption cannot be denied for procedural deviation where substantive conditions are met and compliance is otherwise proved.

Abatement under the exemption notification could not be denied merely because the Goods Transport Agency's declaration appeared on separate letterheads rather than in the body of the consignment note. The notification required only substantive compliance that the GTA had not taken CENVAT credit on inputs or capital goods and had not availed the specified earlier notification; it did not prescribe a rigid form of proof. The Board's circular treated a declaration in the consignment note as sufficient, not mandatory, and the record showed no allegation of prohibited credit or contrary benefit. The procedural requirement was therefore directory, substantial compliance was established, and the notification benefit remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement under the exemption notification when the Goods Transport Agency's declaration was furnished on letterheads instead of on the body of the consignment note, and whether such compliance satisfied the procedural requirement prescribed by the Board's circular.

Analysis: The abatement notification granted the benefit subject to the condition that the Goods Transport Agency had not availed CENVAT credit on inputs or capital goods and had not taken benefit of the specified earlier notification. The notification itself did not prescribe any rigid mode for evidencing compliance. The Board's circular only clarified that a declaration in the consignment note may suffice, and it did not make that mode mandatory or exclude proof by other means. The record showed that separate declarations on the GTAs' letterheads had been produced and that there was no allegation that the GTA had availed prohibited credit or the other notification benefit. The requirement was therefore only procedural, and substantial compliance was established.

Conclusion: The denial of abatement was not justified, and the benefit of the notification was available to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A beneficial exemption cannot be denied for mere procedural deviation when the substantive conditions are satisfied and the prescribed evidence requirement is only directory, not mandatory.

---