Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether exemption under Notification No. 21/55 could be denied for not following Chapter X procedure despite evidence of substantial compliance and whether the refund claim should be reconsidered on proof of receipt and utilisation by the user manufacturer.
Analysis: The exemption was held not to depend on rigid observance of every procedural detail where no mala fides were shown and the assessee could establish later that the exempted material had in fact been received and used for the prescribed purpose. The order also noted supporting material such as prior appellate findings, departmental correspondence indicating that excise formalities need not be observed, and confirmation from the user manufacturer regarding receipt and utilisation. On that basis, the procedural omission was treated as insufficient by itself to defeat the substantive exemption claim.
Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied merely for non-observance of Chapter X procedure if substantial compliance was established, and the refund claim was to be examined by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector on satisfaction about the evidence of receipt and utilisation of the material by the user manufacturer.