Bona fide job-work and beneficial exemption claims cannot be defeated by procedural omissions when manufacture and project supply are established.

A beneficial excise exemption cannot be denied by importing conditions not stated in the notification, and procedural omissions in a bona fide inter-division job-work arrangement do not by themselves justify denial of Cenvat credit or duty demands where manufacture and intended supply are established. The text notes that goods manufactured through divisions and mobile plants of the same assessee, including supplies routed to project use, remained traceable within the assessee's records; the omission of the job-worker's name from the project certificate was treated as insufficient to defeat Notification No. 108/95-C.E. On limitation, disclosed records and the absence of suppression meant the extended period was not available, and penalties were unsustainable once the substantive demands failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the duty demands and denial of Cenvat credit arising out of supplies made to GWSSB and other orders were sustainable where the manufacturing activity was carried out through different divisions of the same assessee on a job-work arrangement; (ii) Whether exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could be denied merely because the job-worker's name did not appear in the project certificate; (iii) Whether the demands were barred by limitation and the attendant penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the duty demands and denial of Cenvat credit arising out of supplies made to GWSSB and other orders were sustainable where the manufacturing activity was carried out through different divisions of the same assessee on a job-work arrangement?

Analysis: The divisions and mobile plants formed part of the same manufacturing set-up, and the record showed that raw materials were moved for manufacture and the finished goods were cleared in the course of the assessee's internal work-order arrangement. The fact that some inputs were sent directly to the job-worker and the finished goods were cleared directly from the job-worker's premises did not make the activity a sham where actual manufacture was undisputed. Once the goods were manufactured for the assessee's account and the duty paid or exemption position of the final clearance was otherwise traceable, Cenvat credit on the inputs used by the principal divisions could not be denied merely for procedural deviations in the movement of goods. The same reasoning applied to the export and domestic work orders where the underlying manufacture and clearances were accounted for within the assessee's units.

Conclusion: The duty demands and denial of Cenvat credit were not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could be denied merely because the job-worker's name did not appear in the project certificate?

Analysis: The exemption was intended for supplies to specified project use, and the factual position of supply to the intended project was not in dispute. The omission of the job-worker's name in the certificate was treated as an additional condition not found in the notification. Beneficial notifications of this kind cannot be denied on a narrow construction when the goods were in fact supplied for the intended project and there was no diversion or misuse shown. The same approach required acceptance of the assessee's claim for the relevant clearances routed through its divisions and mobile plants.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on that ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the demands were barred by limitation and the attendant penalties were sustainable?

Analysis: The arrangement of manufacture, movement of inputs, and clearances was disclosed in the assessee's records and permissions sought from the department. The dispute was essentially about interpretation of the job-work and exemption procedure rather than suppression with intent to evade duty. In such circumstances, invocation of the extended period was not justified. Once the substantive demands failed, the penalties under the excise provisions also could not survive.

Conclusion: The demands were time-barred and the penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside in full and all appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A beneficial excise exemption cannot be denied by importing conditions not found in the notification, and procedural lapses in a bona fide inter-division job-work arrangement do not by themselves justify denial of Cenvat credit, duty demands, or penalties where the manufacture, supply, and intended project use are not disputed.

---