Appellant granted exemption despite missing notification number on initial declaration.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the appellant was eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. despite the initial declaration not mentioning the notification number. The Tribunal found that the appellant had fulfilled the necessary requirements for the exemption, and therefore allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier order denying the benefit of the notification.

---

---

Issues:
1. Applicability of Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. for exemption.
2. Denial of benefit due to non-mentioning of notification in the declaration.
3. Calculation of duty liability based on total clearance.
4. Validity of declaration submitted by the appellant.
5. Decision on appeal.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the applicability of Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. for exemption. The appellant had started a new unit in Uttarakhand and submitted a declaration to the Departmental authorities. The benefit of the notification was denied for a specific period due to the non-mentioning of the notification in the declaration.

2. The appellant, through their Chartered Accountant, argued that the necessary declaration was submitted before the date of availing the exemption under the notification. The Departmental authorities calculated duty liability based on total clearance, including from another unit of the appellant.

3. The Tribunal considered the correspondence from the Departmental authorities, which showed that the impugned notification was prominently mentioned in the communication to the appellant. Despite the non-mentioning of the notification number in the initial declaration, the Tribunal found that the appellant was eligible for the exemption under the notification.

4. It was concluded that the mere omission of the notification number in the declaration was not fatal to the appellant's eligibility for the exemption, especially when they had submitted the necessary documents and were found to be eligible. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

5. In the final decision, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the appellant had fulfilled the requirements for availing the exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. The appeal was allowed, and the earlier order denying the benefit of the notification was set aside.

---