Strict compliance with job-work procedure under Central Excise law was required; non-observance defeated exemption and sustained duty and penalty.

Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required strict compliance with the prescribed job-work procedure, including prior intimation to the jurisdictional officer, prescribed challans for movement of goods, return of processed goods and maintenance of records. Where the principal manufacturer and job-worker failed to produce statutory documents, did not use the required challans and did not maintain accounts, the benefit of the rule was unavailable. The lapse was not treated as a mere technical defect or substantial compliance because the parties were aware of the procedure and followed it in other transactions. Duty demand and penalty were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of aluminium ingots received for job work and whether the demand of duty and penalty were sustainable despite non-observance of the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: Rule 57F(3) required the principal manufacturer and the job-worker to follow a defined procedure, including prior intimation to the jurisdictional Central Excise officer, issue of prescribed challans for movement of inputs and semi-processed goods, return of goods, and maintenance of records. The appellant and the sender of the raw material did not produce the statutory documents, did not use the prescribed challans, and did not maintain the required accounts. The record also showed that the parties were aware of the procedure and followed it in other transactions, so the lapse could not be treated as a mere technical defect or a case of substantial compliance.

Conclusion: The benefit of Rule 57F(3) was not available to the appellant, and the duty demand and penalty were upheld.

---