Procedural lapse in excise intimation cannot defeat exemption credit where substantive compliance and supporting records are available for verification.

A procedural delay in intimating the Central Excise Officer did not justify denial of exemption and credit under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. where the duty-paid slag and supporting records were stated to be available for verification. The defect was treated as procedural rather than substantive, and the benefit could not be refused if the notification's essential conditions were otherwise met. The matter was remanded for verification of the duty-paying documents, with restoration of credit if the records established correct original availment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could be denied the benefit of exemption and credit under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. for failure to give timely intimation to the Central Excise Officer, and whether the matter should be remanded for verification of duty-paying documents.

Analysis: The only objection was a delayed intimation for a limited period, while the duty-paid slag and supporting documents were stated to be available and capable of verification. The defect was therefore procedural in nature, and the benefit of the notification could not be denied if the substantive conditions were otherwise satisfied. The matter was appropriately sent back for verification of the relevant documents.

Conclusion: The assessee was not to be denied credit merely for the procedural lapse, and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector for verification with restoration of credit if the documents established correct original availment.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural breach in complying with an exemption notification does not justify denial of the benefit where substantial compliance is shown and the supporting documents remain available for verification.

---