https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90789 Exemption under Notification No. 81/75 could not be denied merely because the Chapter X procedure was not followed in full, where the essential conditions were otherwise satisfied. The appellants had obtained the required licence, executed the bond and furnished security, and the department did not dispute that sulphuric acid was used in manufacturing fertilizers as required by the notification. The omission to obtain the CT-2 certificate for a particular supplier was treated as a procedural lapse, not a failure of substantive compliance. The exemption was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:13:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90789 Exemption under Notification No. 81/75 could not be denied merely because the Chapter X procedure was not followed in full, where the essential conditions were otherwise satisfied. The appellants had obtained the required licence, executed the bond and furnished security, and the department did not dispute that sulphuric acid was used in manufacturing fertilizers as required by the notification. The omission to obtain the CT-2 certificate for a particular supplier was treated as a procedural lapse, not a failure of substantive compliance. The exemption was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90789