Exemption notification compliance: procedural delay in installation did not defeat relief where substantive use was undisputed.

A procedural time limit in an exemption notification did not defeat relief where the stipulated substantive use of the air conditioner within the establishment was undisputed. The notification required the manufacturer to satisfy the proper officer within one month of clearance, or within an extended period allowed by the Collector, but the record showed no dispute as to fulfilment of the notification's object. The absence of an extension application was treated as non-decisive on these facts, and the exemption was held to remain available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 56/78 dated 1-3-1978 could be denied merely because the air conditioner was installed and used after the stipulated one-month period, when such installation and use within the concerned establishment was otherwise undisputed.

Analysis: The notification required the manufacturer to satisfy the proper officer within one month of clearance, or within such extended period as the Collector might allow. The use of the air conditioner within the establishment was not disputed, and the record did not show any contest to the substantive fulfilment of the object of the notification. The absence of an application for extension was treated as not decisive in the facts of the case, because the exemption was otherwise attracted and the delay related to the procedural time limit.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification was held to be available and the revenue's objection failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural time condition in an exemption notification will not defeat the exemption where the substantive use contemplated by the notification is undisputed and the notification itself permits extension of time.

---