https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356560 Delayed filing of the statement required under condition 5(d) of an exemption notification was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive disqualification. The Tribunal noted that the notification required monthly submission by the 15th of the succeeding month and that non-compliance with clauses (a) to (e) could affect the option to take self-credit. Applying the distinction between eligibility conditions and procedural requirements, it concluded that where the assessee otherwise satisfied the exemption conditions, delayed filing alone could not justify denial of self-credit or the exemption benefit. The impugned orders were set aside and consequential relief followed. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356560 Delayed filing of the statement required under condition 5(d) of an exemption notification was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive disqualification. The Tribunal noted that the notification required monthly submission by the 15th of the succeeding month and that non-compliance with clauses (a) to (e) could affect the option to take self-credit. Applying the distinction between eligibility conditions and procedural requirements, it concluded that where the assessee otherwise satisfied the exemption conditions, delayed filing alone could not justify denial of self-credit or the exemption benefit. The impugned orders were set aside and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356560