https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82629 Exemption under Notification No. 21/55 was treated as unavailable only where non-observance of Chapter X procedure showed a real failure to satisfy the substantive conditions; mere procedural lapse was not enough where substantial compliance was established and no mala fides were shown. The material on record, including prior appellate findings, departmental correspondence, and confirmation from the user manufacturer, supported receipt and utilisation of the exempted goods for the prescribed purpose. On that basis, the exemption could not be denied solely for procedural non-compliance, and the refund claim was required to be examined by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector on proof of receipt and use by the user manufacturer. en-us Tue, 29 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:21:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82629 Exemption under Notification No. 21/55 was treated as unavailable only where non-observance of Chapter X procedure showed a real failure to satisfy the substantive conditions; mere procedural lapse was not enough where substantial compliance was established and no mala fides were shown. The material on record, including prior appellate findings, departmental correspondence, and confirmation from the user manufacturer, supported receipt and utilisation of the exempted goods for the prescribed purpose. On that basis, the exemption could not be denied solely for procedural non-compliance, and the refund claim was required to be examined by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector on proof of receipt and use by the user manufacturer. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82629