https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73675 Exemption under Notification No. 118/75 was available where the assessee had filed the prescribed application, disclosed the intended use, and complied with Chapter X procedural requirements, even though formal permission or licence was granted later. The delay in approval was attributable to the department, and there was no finding of breach of substantive safeguards, maintenance of accounts, or other excise formalities. On those facts, the permission was treated as relating back to the date of application, especially since the goods were used in another factory already under excise control and no revenue risk was shown. The demand was therefore not sustainable. en-us Fri, 22 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:23:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73675 Exemption under Notification No. 118/75 was available where the assessee had filed the prescribed application, disclosed the intended use, and complied with Chapter X procedural requirements, even though formal permission or licence was granted later. The delay in approval was attributable to the department, and there was no finding of breach of substantive safeguards, maintenance of accounts, or other excise formalities. On those facts, the permission was treated as relating back to the date of application, especially since the goods were used in another factory already under excise control and no revenue risk was shown. The demand was therefore not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73675