Legal fiction for job-work manufacturers extends to refund jurisdiction when excise procedure is duly followed.

Rule 12B creates a legal fiction treating a registered job-work trader as a manufacturer for excise purposes, and that status extends to connected refund matters when the prescribed procedure is followed. On the facts, the assessee had obtained registration, maintained accounts, paid duty and dealt with its own jurisdictional officers, so there was no basis to restrict refund jurisdiction to the job worker's factory location. The contrary objection was rejected, and the refund was held maintainable before the assessee's own jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for a trader registered and treated as a manufacturer under Rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the refund claim for duty paid on exported goods cleared from a job worker's premises had to be filed before the authority having jurisdiction over the job worker's factory or before the assessee's own jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis: Rule 12B created a statutory fiction under which a person getting textile goods manufactured on job work, and who obtained registration, maintained accounts, paid duty and complied with the prescribed procedure, was to be treated as an assessee for the relevant excise purposes. The registration certificate also showed the appellant as registered for manufacture of excisable goods. Once that legal fiction was accepted and the appellant had discharged duty and followed the prescribed procedure, it was inconsistent to treat it as a manufacturer for levy purposes but deny the same status for refund purposes. The record also showed that the appellant's dealings were with its own jurisdictional range officer and Assistant Commissioner, and the Revenue had not shown any non-compliance with the statutory procedure.

Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly maintainable before the appellant's own jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, and the contrary objection based on the job worker's location was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee was held entitled to the refund with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a legal fiction treating a trader as a manufacturer for job-worked textile goods and the prescribed excise procedure is duly followed, the fiction must be given full effect for all connected purposes, including refund jurisdiction.

---