Substantial compliance under Chapter X preserves exemption, but procedural lapse can still justify penalty for non-compliance.

Substantial compliance with Chapter X procedure was treated as sufficient where excisable goods were actually received at the consignee factory and receipt was intimated to the Central Excise Officer, so the absence of an L-6 licence and C.T.-2 certificate at the time of removal did not defeat exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E. as amended, and the duty demand was unsustainable. However, the assessee's failure to ensure that the consignee had obtained the required licence and certificate before despatch was treated as a procedural lapse justifying penalty, and the penalty under Rule 173Q was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether absence of L-6 licence and C.T.-2 certificate at the time of removal disentitled the assessee from exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E. as amended; (ii) Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was justified.

Issue (i): Whether absence of L-6 licence and C.T.-2 certificate at the time of removal disentitled the assessee from exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E. as amended.

Analysis: The goods were in fact received at the consignee factory and receipt was intimated to the Central Excise Officer. The purpose of the Chapter X procedure was to ensure actual receipt and captive consumption, and that object stood fulfilled. The omission to complete the procedural formalities of obtaining the licence and certificate before despatch did not defeat the substantive benefit of the notification.

Conclusion: The absence of L-6 licence and C.T.-2 certificate did not disentitle the assessee from the exemption, and the duty demand was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was justified.

Analysis: The assessee should have ensured that the consignee had obtained the necessary licence and certificate before sending the goods. That lapse was treated as sufficient for a penalty, and no adequate ground was found to interfere with the quantum or imposition of penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs. 500 under Rule 173Q was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the denial of duty recovery failed, while the assessee's challenge to the penalty also failed; the order was sustained in substance.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantial compliance with Chapter X procedure is sufficient where the goods are actually received for captive consumption, and mere procedural omission does not by itself defeat exemption, though a penalty may still be sustained for failure to ensure compliance with the required formalities.

---