https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100915 Notification No. 1/95-C.E. could not be denied merely because the CT-3 certificate was issued by the officer-in-charge of the 100% EOU rather than the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer. The CT-3 certificate was pre-authenticated, and a trade notice acknowledged the practical difficulty for 100% EOUs in obtaining CT-3 certificates from the jurisdictional officer while permitting use of pre-authenticated CT-3 booklets subject to verification by the Range Superintendent. In the absence of any allegation of misuse or misutilisation of the exemption, the objection was only technical and was not a valid basis to refuse the benefit. en-us Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:37:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100915 Notification No. 1/95-C.E. could not be denied merely because the CT-3 certificate was issued by the officer-in-charge of the 100% EOU rather than the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer. The CT-3 certificate was pre-authenticated, and a trade notice acknowledged the practical difficulty for 100% EOUs in obtaining CT-3 certificates from the jurisdictional officer while permitting use of pre-authenticated CT-3 booklets subject to verification by the Range Superintendent. In the absence of any allegation of misuse or misutilisation of the exemption, the objection was only technical and was not a valid basis to refuse the benefit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100915