Job-work processing under Rule 57F procedure did not trigger central excise duty for the fabric processor.

A job-worker that received fabrics for heat setting and stentering under Rule 57F(3) and returned the processed goods under Rule 57F(4) was not liable to central excise duty on those fabrics. The factual position was undisputed, and the processing was treated as falling within the prescribed job-work procedure. Following its earlier decision on the same issue, the Tribunal found no breach of the rule-based arrangement and no duty liability attaching to the job-worker. The duty demand was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a job-worker who carried out heat setting and stentering of fabrics received from manufacturers under Rule 57F(3) and returned the processed goods under Rule 57F(4) was liable to pay central excise duty on the processed fabrics.

Analysis: The goods were received by the respondents for job work and, after processing, were returned to the manufacturers. The factual matrix was not in dispute. The processing activity was held to be covered by the procedure under Rule 57F(3) and Rule 57F(4), and the Tribunal's earlier decision on the same issue was followed. On that basis, no violation of the rule-based procedure or duty liability as job-workers was found.

Conclusion: The respondents were not liable to discharge central excise duty on the processed fabrics as job-workers, and the duty demand was rightly set aside.

---