https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336392 Refund of central excise duty on captively manufactured moulds was examined against non-compliance with Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the conditions of Notification No. 68/92. The text states that mere filing of a declaration and its endorsement by the jurisdictional Superintendent did not amount to substantial compliance, because the exemption depended on mandatory procedural steps and the required classification claim. The cited precedent on a technical lapse was found inapplicable since the default here went to the core conditions of the notification. The refund claim was therefore rejected for failure to satisfy the prescribed procedural and notification requirements. en-us Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jan 2017 16:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336392 Refund of central excise duty on captively manufactured moulds was examined against non-compliance with Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the conditions of Notification No. 68/92. The text states that mere filing of a declaration and its endorsement by the jurisdictional Superintendent did not amount to substantial compliance, because the exemption depended on mandatory procedural steps and the required classification claim. The cited precedent on a technical lapse was found inapplicable since the default here went to the core conditions of the notification. The refund claim was therefore rejected for failure to satisfy the prescribed procedural and notification requirements. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336392