https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190478 The exemption under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) could not be denied merely because proof of export was not filed within six months, since the notification did not prescribe that time limit. Failure to submit the ARE-1 triplicate copy within 24 hours was also treated as a procedural lapse only. Where supply of goods to SEZ units was otherwise undisputed and the substantive conditions were satisfied, the procedural omissions could not defeat the benefit of the notification. en-us Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:00:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190478 The exemption under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) could not be denied merely because proof of export was not filed within six months, since the notification did not prescribe that time limit. Failure to submit the ARE-1 triplicate copy within 24 hours was also treated as a procedural lapse only. Where supply of goods to SEZ units was otherwise undisputed and the substantive conditions were satisfied, the procedural omissions could not defeat the benefit of the notification. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190478