https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123497 Exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. could not be denied merely because the assessee did not file a separate prescribed option form, where a declaration under Rule 173B had already been filed on 1-4-99. The notification did not require any specific pro forma for exercising the option, and no procedural defect was shown that could override substantive entitlement to the exemption. On that basis, the appellate view allowing the exemption for the relevant period was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:21:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123497 Exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. could not be denied merely because the assessee did not file a separate prescribed option form, where a declaration under Rule 173B had already been filed on 1-4-99. The notification did not require any specific pro forma for exercising the option, and no procedural defect was shown that could override substantive entitlement to the exemption. On that basis, the appellate view allowing the exemption for the relevant period was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123497