Mandatory exemption conditions under Notification No. 38/97-C.E. had to be met in writing; later compliance could not cure earlier default.

Notification No. 38/97-C.E. made exemption conditional on the manufacturer exercising the option in writing and informing the excise authority of the prescribed particulars, including the unit's identity and location, the goods manufactured, the date of option, and aggregate clearances. A mere reference to the notification in the classification list did not satisfy these mandatory requirements, and a later declaration did not cure the earlier default. The conditions were treated as substantive and mandatory rather than procedural, so partial compliance was insufficient and the exemption benefit was unavailable for the period in dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 38/97-C.E. despite not complying with the notification's mandatory written option and disclosure requirements during the relevant period.

Analysis: The notification made the exemption conditional upon the manufacturer exercising the option in writing and informing the proper excise authority of the prescribed particulars, including the identity and location of the unit, the goods manufactured, the date of exercise of option, and the aggregate clearances till that date. The appellant's classification list merely referred to the notification and did not furnish the required declaration during the period in dispute. The later filing of the declaration did not cure the earlier non-compliance. The conditions were treated as mandatory and not as mere procedural formalities, so the benefit could not be claimed as a matter of right on partial compliance alone.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the exemption for the period in dispute, and the denial of the notification benefit was upheld.

---