https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367841 The appellant sought rectification for not filing a declaration for availing area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003. Despite voluntarily filing later, the benefit was denied. The Tribunal analyzed if the mistake could be rectified under relevant provisions. The appellant's argument that non-filing was a procedural mistake justifying rectification was countered by the Department, stating it was a matter of opinion. The Tribunal examined Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, allowing rectification for evident errors only. It concluded that compliance with conditions could not have retrospective effect and dismissed the rectification application. en-us Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:46:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367841 The appellant sought rectification for not filing a declaration for availing area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003. Despite voluntarily filing later, the benefit was denied. The Tribunal analyzed if the mistake could be rectified under relevant provisions. The appellant's argument that non-filing was a procedural mistake justifying rectification was countered by the Department, stating it was a matter of opinion. The Tribunal examined Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, allowing rectification for evident errors only. It concluded that compliance with conditions could not have retrospective effect and dismissed the rectification application. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367841