https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294608 Exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-CE could not be denied merely because the declaration was addressed to the Superintendent instead of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, where the unit was located in the notified area and the declaration with supporting documents had been received within the jurisdictional commissionerate. The filing requirement was treated as a procedural mechanism to inform the department of the commencement of production, not as a condition that would defeat substantive exemption when substantial compliance was otherwise shown. On that basis, the demand and penalty were held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:02:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294608 Exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-CE could not be denied merely because the declaration was addressed to the Superintendent instead of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, where the unit was located in the notified area and the declaration with supporting documents had been received within the jurisdictional commissionerate. The filing requirement was treated as a procedural mechanism to inform the department of the commencement of production, not as a condition that would defeat substantive exemption when substantial compliance was otherwise shown. On that basis, the demand and penalty were held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294608