https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82890 Notification No. 118/75-C.E. could not be denied merely because Chapter X procedure was not strictly followed where the assessee had obtained an L-6 licence, issued the relevant gate passes, and the record showed no dispute on quantity or on there being only one clearance. Applying the principle of substantial compliance, the procedural lapse was treated as inadvertent rather than deliberate or mala fide, and the substantive exemption benefit was preserved. The objection based solely on non-observance of Chapter X was therefore rejected, and the refund claim arising from the April 1983 clearances was allowed on the basis that the essential conditions for the notification were otherwise satisfied. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:41:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82890 Notification No. 118/75-C.E. could not be denied merely because Chapter X procedure was not strictly followed where the assessee had obtained an L-6 licence, issued the relevant gate passes, and the record showed no dispute on quantity or on there being only one clearance. Applying the principle of substantial compliance, the procedural lapse was treated as inadvertent rather than deliberate or mala fide, and the substantive exemption benefit was preserved. The objection based solely on non-observance of Chapter X was therefore rejected, and the refund claim arising from the April 1983 clearances was allowed on the basis that the essential conditions for the notification were otherwise satisfied. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82890