https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351158 Failure to file a separate option or declaration under Notification No. 9/2003-C.E. was treated by the majority as a procedural lapse, not a substantive condition for SSI exemption, because the assessee had consistently disclosed the claim in ER-3 returns and the revenue was already aware of the availment. On that basis, denial of the exemption merely for non-filing of the declaration was considered unwarranted where eligibility was otherwise established. The dissenting view treated the declaration requirement as mandatory and substantive, but it did not prevail. The commentary therefore reflects the principle that a procedural omission should not defeat an exemption claim supported by statutory disclosures. en-us Thu, 02 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Mar 2019 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351158 Failure to file a separate option or declaration under Notification No. 9/2003-C.E. was treated by the majority as a procedural lapse, not a substantive condition for SSI exemption, because the assessee had consistently disclosed the claim in ER-3 returns and the revenue was already aware of the availment. On that basis, denial of the exemption merely for non-filing of the declaration was considered unwarranted where eligibility was otherwise established. The dissenting view treated the declaration requirement as mandatory and substantive, but it did not prevail. The commentary therefore reflects the principle that a procedural omission should not defeat an exemption claim supported by statutory disclosures. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351158