Procedural delay in exemption intimation cannot defeat substantive tax exemption where the assessee has opted under the notification.

Delayed intimation required by an exemption notification was treated as a procedural lapse, not a ground to deny substantive exemption. The manufacturer had opted for the notification by filing a declaration under Rule 173B, which bound it to the notification's conditions for the rest of the financial year. That later compliance did not erase entitlement to exemption for the earlier period before intimation. The demand was therefore set aside and the exemption claim upheld with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether delayed filing of intimation under the exemption notification disentitled the assessee from availing the exemption for the period prior to such intimation.

Analysis: The notification required the manufacturer to intimate the Revenue of the intention to claim exemption before making the first clearances. The omission to file the declaration immediately was treated as a procedural non-compliance. The assessee had in fact opted for the exemption under the notification by filing the declaration under Rule 173B on 9-4-99, and the filing of that declaration bound it to the conditions of the notification for the remainder of the financial year. The delayed intimation did not affect the substantive entitlement to the exemption for the earlier period.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption for the period 1-4-99 to 8-4-99, and the denial of benefit on the ground of late intimation was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The demand was set aside and the assessee's exemption claim was upheld with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural delay in filing the declaration required for availing an exemption cannot by itself defeat the substantive exemption when the assessee has otherwise opted for and acted under the notification.

---