https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93001 A substantive exemption under Notification No. 142/88 could not be refused merely because the Chapter X procedure under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not followed, where the intended use of the goods in manufacturing exempt mono block pumps was established. The article applies the principle that procedural non-compliance does not defeat exemption when the notification's substantive condition is otherwise proved by evidence. It notes that the prior Revenue-favouring line was treated as no longer good law in light of later binding precedent, and the duty and penalty demand were therefore unsustainable. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:22:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93001 A substantive exemption under Notification No. 142/88 could not be refused merely because the Chapter X procedure under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not followed, where the intended use of the goods in manufacturing exempt mono block pumps was established. The article applies the principle that procedural non-compliance does not defeat exemption when the notification's substantive condition is otherwise proved by evidence. It notes that the prior Revenue-favouring line was treated as no longer good law in light of later binding precedent, and the duty and penalty demand were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93001