Job-work exemption for stranded wire sustained on duty, while penalties survived for failure to give prior intimation.

Job-work clearance of stranded wire was treated as falling within Notification No. 119/75-C.E., with exemption limited to the amount charged for job work. On that basis, the duty demands were held unsustainable and were set aside, especially as the classification list and RT-12 returns had already been approved and the earlier assessments were not reopened in the proceedings. However, failure to give prior intimation of availing the exemption remained a procedural contravention, so penalties under Rule 173Q were upheld despite the availability of substantive exemption.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 119/75-C.E. in respect of stranded wire cleared on job-work basis and whether the duty demands were sustainable; (ii) whether the penalties imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules were justified.

Issue (i): entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 119/75-C.E. and sustainability of the duty demands.

Analysis: The notification exempted goods falling under Item 68 manufactured in a factory as job work, with duty confined to the amount charged for the job work. The respondents were carrying out stranding of wire on job-work basis and the classification list and RT-12 returns had been approved. Although a later decision had held that stranded wire was not classifiable under Item 68, the assessments already made on that footing were not to be reopened in the present proceedings. On the record as it stood, the respondents would have been eligible for the exemption, and the duty demands were not maintainable.

Conclusion: The duty demands were set aside and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): justification of penalties under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The respondents had not given prior intimation of availing the exemption and the contravention attracted penal consequences. The existence of eligibility to exemption did not erase the procedural default for which the penalties were imposed.

Conclusion: The penalties were upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed only to the extent of the Revenue's challenge to the setting aside of duty demands, while the penalties and the consequential relief granted below were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where job-work goods are otherwise covered by an exemption notification, duty demands cannot be sustained merely because the assessee failed to give prior intimation, but penal consequences for the procedural contravention may still survive.

---