https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115675 Exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. could not be denied merely because intimation to the department was delayed and some initial clearances had already been made on payment of duty. The assessee received the notification belatedly, paid duty on part of the clearances, and thereafter claimed the concession with the department's knowledge. The discrepancy was treated as a technical lapse rather than a substantive breach, so the exemption remained available and the Revenue's objection failed. en-us Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:28:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115675 Exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. could not be denied merely because intimation to the department was delayed and some initial clearances had already been made on payment of duty. The assessee received the notification belatedly, paid duty on part of the clearances, and thereafter claimed the concession with the department's knowledge. The discrepancy was treated as a technical lapse rather than a substantive breach, so the exemption remained available and the Revenue's objection failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115675