Exemption under Notification No. 5/99-CE could not be denied for a declaration lapse where the goods were otherwise eligible.

Notification No. 5/99-CE exemption was available for the disputed goods because they did not fall within the excluded items and were used in the manufacture of power-driven pumps, with the required Chapter X procedure followed where applicable. The omission to mention the notification in the declaration for the relevant period was treated as a technical lapse and did not justify denial of the benefit. The note also records that similar exemption had been granted for later periods and that eligible notifications operate independently, so one lawful exemption is not barred merely because another may also be available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 5/99-CE in respect of the disputed goods, and whether the benefit could be denied merely because the notification was not specifically mentioned in the declaration for the relevant period.

Analysis: The goods in dispute were found not to fall within the excluded items under the notification. The exemption was held to be available where the goods were used in the manufacture of power-driven pumps and the prescribed procedure under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was followed where relevant. The Tribunal also noted that the appellants had been granted the same or similar exemption for subsequent periods, that the notifications operated independently, and that there was no bar on availing more than one eligible exemption. The omission to mention the notification in the declaration for the relevant period was treated as a technical lapse, and the benefit of exemption could not be denied on that ground.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the exemption and the demand was not sustainable.

---