Fresh declaration under revised money credit notification was treated as a technical formality where prior declaration already covered the inputs and product.
A money credit scheme under a revised exemption notification was treated as continuing in nature where the earlier declaration already filed contained the relevant particulars and the inputs and final product remained unchanged. The majority view was that requiring a fresh declaration under the later notification would serve only a formal purpose, so non-filing was a procedural irregularity and not a defect going to eligibility. The dissent considered a declaration under the later notification a mandatory condition precedent. On the facts stated, the absence of a fresh declaration was not fatal and substantive entitlement to credit was preserved.
Issues: Whether a fresh declaration was mandatory for availing money credit under Notification No. 45/89 dated 11-10-1989 when a declaration had already been filed under the earlier Notification No. 27/87 dated 01-03-1987, and whether non-filing of the fresh declaration was only a technical breach.
Analysis: The majority held that the money credit scheme was continuing in nature and that the earlier declaration already on record contained the relevant particulars regarding the inputs and the final product. As the inputs and finished product remained unchanged and the revised notification was substantially similar, insisting on another declaration would serve only a formal purpose. The defect was treated as a procedural irregularity and not a failure going to the root of eligibility. The dissenting view treated filing of a declaration under the later notification as mandatory and a condition precedent to avail the credit.
Conclusion: The non-filing of a fresh declaration was not fatal in the facts of the case, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the money credit scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the inputs and final product remain the same and a valid declaration already exists on record, a fresh declaration under a revised notification is not ; non-filing of another copy is only a technical lapse and does not defeat substantive entitlement to credit.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
