https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51765 Delayed intimation required by an exemption notification was treated as a procedural lapse, not a ground to deny substantive exemption. The manufacturer had opted for the notification by filing a declaration under Rule 173B, which bound it to the notification's conditions for the rest of the financial year. That later compliance did not erase entitlement to exemption for the earlier period before intimation. The demand was therefore set aside and the exemption claim upheld with consequential relief. en-us Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:07:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51765 Delayed intimation required by an exemption notification was treated as a procedural lapse, not a ground to deny substantive exemption. The manufacturer had opted for the notification by filing a declaration under Rule 173B, which bound it to the notification's conditions for the rest of the financial year. That later compliance did not erase entitlement to exemption for the earlier period before intimation. The demand was therefore set aside and the exemption claim upheld with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51765