Substantial compliance with exemption notification requirements can preserve relief where departmental permission and approved revised declarations satisfy the notification's purpose.

Substantial compliance with an exemption notification was sufficient where the assessee acted under written departmental permission, declared revised prices, obtained approval, and cleared goods only thereafter. The notification's purpose was to ensure duty was based on the retail price declared on the packet, and that purpose was substantially achieved through the approved revised declarations and sticker affixation on cartons. Any departure from literal price-marking requirements was only technical and minor, so the exemption could not be denied on a hypertechnical reading. Strict construction of exemption provisions did not require rejection of practical compliance with the essential conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee, having followed the procedure permitted by the departmental authorities and effected clearance only after declaration and approval of revised prices, was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification despite non-literal compliance with the price-marking requirement.

Analysis: The assessee anticipated the practical difficulty arising from the Budget-related change in duty and obtained written permission prescribing an interim procedure. The record showed that the assessee followed that procedure, declared revised prices, obtained approval, and cleared the goods thereafter. The purpose of the notification was to base duty on the retail price declared on the packet, and that purpose was substantially achieved by the approved declaration of revised prices and the affixation of stickers on cartons. In these facts, the breach, if any, was only technical and minor, and the notification could not be denied on a hypertechnical view. Although exemption provisions are to be construed strictly, practical compliance with the essential requirements was sufficient here.

Conclusion: The assessee's compliance was sufficient and the demand at the tariff rate was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeal was allowed because the assessee was held entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification on the basis of substantial compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the essential object of an exemption notification is fulfilled and the assessee acts under departmental permission with substantial compliance, a minor technical deviation does not justify denial of the exemption or levy at the higher rate.

---