Procedural delay in filing exemption option could not defeat substantive entitlement where exempted clearances showed clear intent.

A procedural delay in filing the option for exemption under Notification No. 8/99 did not justify denial where the assessee had already cleared goods at the exempted rate and the intention to avail the benefit was otherwise clear. The requirement in paragraph 2 was treated as procedural, not one going to the root of eligibility, and the delay was explained by the proprietor's sickness. The exemption could not be withdrawn merely because the formal declaration was filed late, so the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable and the assessee remained entitled to the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in filing the option for availing the exemption under Notification No. 8/99, despite clearances being made at the exempted rate and the intention to opt being otherwise evident, justified denial of the exemption and confirmation of duty and penalty.

Analysis: The requirement in paragraph 2 of the notification was examined in the light of the surrounding facts and the nature of the condition. The assessee had cleared the goods at the exempted rate from the beginning of the relevant period, and the delay in filing the formal declaration was found to have been caused by the sickness of the proprietor. The condition was treated as procedural rather than one that destroyed the substantive entitlement, and the benefit already availed could not be taken away merely for the delay in filing the option.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the facts, and the duty demand and penalty were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee was held entitled to the exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive exemption cannot be denied for breach of a procedural requirement where the assessee's intention to avail the benefit is established and the condition does not go to the root of eligibility.

---