Job-work exemption cannot be denied for procedural lapse when receipt and return of goods are otherwise established.

Exemption under Notification No. 119/86-C.E. was examined in the context of job-work movement of raw materials from a sister unit and return of clinker after processing. The failure to follow Chapter X procedure was treated as only a procedural lapse and, by itself, insufficient to deny the exemption where the underlying receipt, conversion, and return of goods were otherwise established. Entitlement remained subject to departmental verification of the quantity returned, and the duty demand and penalty were set aside on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 119/86-C.E. despite not following the Chapter X procedure, and whether the exemption could be denied when the raw materials were received from the sister unit and the clinker was returned after job work.

Analysis: The allegations in the show cause notice showed that the appellant received limestone, coke breeze and clay from M/s. Nandi Cements from the same premises and survey number, converted the materials into clinker on labour charges, and returned the goods to that unit. On these facts, the procedural lapse of not following Chapter X procedure was held insufficient to deny the exemption. The entitlement was, however, made subject to departmental verification of the quantity returned.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 119/86-C.E., subject to verification by the department of the quantity returned.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were set aside and the appeal succeeded on the exemption issue.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural omission in following Chapter X procedure does not, by itself, defeat exemption where the underlying job-work receipt and return of goods are otherwise established, subject to factual verification.

---