https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118587 Exemption under Notification No. 41/99-C.E. depended on proof that the required undertaking had reached the Assistant or Deputy Commissioner. A certificate of posting was insufficient to prove receipt, and even proof of delivery of the envelope would not establish that the undertaking was inside it. Because the substantive condition for exemption was not shown to be satisfied, no prima facie case was made out against the duty and cess demand. Financial hardship was also unsupported by evidence and did not justify dispensing with pre-deposit. Pre-deposit of the duty and cess was directed, and stay of recovery of the penalty was made conditional on compliance. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:58:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118587 Exemption under Notification No. 41/99-C.E. depended on proof that the required undertaking had reached the Assistant or Deputy Commissioner. A certificate of posting was insufficient to prove receipt, and even proof of delivery of the envelope would not establish that the undertaking was inside it. Because the substantive condition for exemption was not shown to be satisfied, no prima facie case was made out against the duty and cess demand. Financial hardship was also unsupported by evidence and did not justify dispensing with pre-deposit. Pre-deposit of the duty and cess was directed, and stay of recovery of the penalty was made conditional on compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118587