The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the benefit of a Central Excise exemption cannot be denied merely because goods manufactured on a job-work basis were first supplied to the principal manufacturer before ultimately reaching jute mills. 

The bench of  K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) ruled that procedural lapses, such as failure to intimate the jurisdictional excise officer, cannot override substantive compliance with the conditions of the exemption notification. 

The dispute arose after the Central Excise Department issued a show cause notice to a Kolkata-based manufacturer engaged in producing Aluminium Baxter Flyers on a job-work basis for Sugan Engineering Private Limited.

Buy Now: Service Tax Judgement E-Compilation : June 2026

The principal manufacturer supplied aluminium ingots to the job worker, who manufactured the Baxter Flyers. After receiving the goods, the principal manufacturer carried out processes such as heat treatment and dynamic balancing before supplying the finished components to jute mills for use in manufacturing jute textiles.

The appellant did not pay central excise duty on the goods, claiming exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE, later superseded by Notification No. 12/2012-CE, which grants exemption to specified goods required by jute mills for making jute textiles. 

Following an audit covering the period April 2011 to December 2012, the Department alleged that the appellant had failed to establish compliance with Condition No. 2 of the exemption notification.

According to the Department, the exemption was available only when the manufacturer proved to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Assistant or Deputy Commissioner that the goods were cleared for the intended use in jute mills. Since the goods were supplied to the principal manufacturer rather than directly to jute mills, and no prior permission or intimation had been given to the jurisdictional officer, the Department denied the exemption.

The adjudicating authority confirmed a central excise duty demand of ₹6,72,997, along with interest and an equal penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently upheld the order, prompting the manufacturer to approach the Tribunal. 

The appellant argued that Aluminium Baxter Flyers are components exclusively designed for jute spinning machinery and have no commercial use outside the jute industry.

It submitted that although the principal manufacturer carried out heat treatment and balancing before supplying the goods, the components were ultimately sold only to jute mills. Sample invoices demonstrating supplies to jute mills were produced before the Tribunal.

The appellant further contended that the exemption notification merely required proof that the goods were intended for use in jute mills and did not mandate prior approval or permission from the jurisdictional excise authorities. Any failure to intimate the department, it argued, was at best a procedural lapse that could not defeat a substantive exemption. 

The Tribunal first examined the nature and use of a Baxter Flyer.

It observed that a Baxter Flyer is a crucial component of a jute spinning frame, facilitating the twisting of fibres into yarn and winding yarn onto bobbins. The Tribunal noted that such components are specifically designed for use in jute mills and have no practical application elsewhere.

After reviewing the sample invoices placed on record, the Tribunal found that the goods manufactured by the appellant, after undergoing heat treatment by the principal manufacturer, were indeed supplied to jute mills for making jute textiles. The invoices substantiated the appellant’s claim regarding the ultimate end use of the goods. 

A significant aspect of the ruling concerns the interpretation of the phrase “intended for use” contained in the exemption notification.

The Tribunal observed that the notification nowhere stipulates that the goods must be supplied directly to a jute mill or used in their original manufactured condition. Instead, the notification merely requires that the goods be intended for use in jute mills.

The Bench held that the expression is broad enough to include goods manufactured on a job-work basis that undergo intermediate processing by the principal manufacturer before their ultimate use in jute mills.

Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the Department’s contention that intermediate processing by the principal manufacturer disentitled the appellant from claiming the exemption. 

The Tribunal also rejected the Department’s argument that the exemption was unavailable because the appellant had not intimated the jurisdictional Assistant or Deputy Commissioner before clearing the goods without payment of duty.

It observed that neither Notification No. 6/2006-CE nor Notification No. 12/2012-CE prescribes any requirement for prior or subsequent intimation to the excise authorities. The only requirement is that the manufacturer establish that the goods were intended for use in jute mills.

Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Sambhaji v. Gangabai, the Tribunal reiterated that procedural laws are intended to facilitate justice and should not frustrate substantive rights. Consequently, any failure to intimate the authorities could only amount to a procedural irregularity and could not justify denial of an otherwise valid exemption. 

The Tribunal further noted that the Department had produced no evidence to suggest that either the appellant or the principal manufacturer had diverted the goods for any purpose other than supply to jute mills.

On the contrary, the documentary evidence established that the goods ultimately reached jute mills after undergoing heat treatment and balancing.

Since the substantive condition of intended use stood satisfied, the Tribunal held that denial of exemption was unsustainable. 

Allowing the appeal, the CESTAT set aside the orders of both the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Tribunal quashed the central excise duty demand of ₹6,72,997, along with the corresponding interest and equal penalty, holding that the appellant had fulfilled the conditions of the exemption notification and was entitled to the benefit of duty exemption. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Delay of 8 Days Before Commissioner (Appeals) Was Condonable: CESTAT Allows Tata Motors’ Appeal