https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74441 Procedural non-compliance in maintaining registers, filing abstracts, giving D-3 intimations, and producing gate passes did not by itself defeat entitlement to Central Excise set-off or exemption. The Tribunal held that the controlling question was whether the inputs had suffered duty and were actually used in manufacture, because the notifications and related procedures were designed to verify duty-paid inputs and end-use, not to deny a substantive concession on technical lapses. It treated the procedural requirements as directory where their object could still be achieved, and preserved the exemption benefit where factual eligibility was otherwise established. en-us Tue, 23 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:08:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74441 Procedural non-compliance in maintaining registers, filing abstracts, giving D-3 intimations, and producing gate passes did not by itself defeat entitlement to Central Excise set-off or exemption. The Tribunal held that the controlling question was whether the inputs had suffered duty and were actually used in manufacture, because the notifications and related procedures were designed to verify duty-paid inputs and end-use, not to deny a substantive concession on technical lapses. It treated the procedural requirements as directory where their object could still be achieved, and preserved the exemption benefit where factual eligibility was otherwise established. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74441