Manufacture versus job work and lawful DTA clearances by a 100% EOU defeated duty, penalty and confiscation claims.

Processing that transforms supplied materials into a new commercially distinct product constitutes manufacture, even if title in the inputs remains with the customer; on that basis, the unit's conversion activity was treated as manufacture rather than mere job work. A 100% Export Oriented Unit may make domestic tariff area clearances within the policy framework when the goods are manufactured in the unit, and duty could not be demanded on the footing that the clearances were outside the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the substantive duty demand failed, the related interest, penalty and confiscation were also unsustainable. The appeals succeeded and the impugned liabilities were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conversion activity carried out by the 100% Export Oriented Unit amounted to manufacture or mere job work; (ii) whether the clearances made to the domestic market were permissible and the demand could be raised under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iii) whether the demand of duty, interest, penalty and confiscation could survive.

Issue (i): whether the conversion activity carried out by the 100% Export Oriented Unit amounted to manufacture or mere job work

Analysis: A process results in manufacture when a new and commercially different product emerges from the raw materials supplied. The decisive test is the character of the activity and the emergence of a distinct product, not merely the fact that title in the raw materials remained with the customer. The materials showed that the unit added its own raw materials, consumables and electricity and produced Silicon Manganese as a new commercial product.

Conclusion: The activity amounted to manufacture and not merely job work.

Issue (ii): whether the clearances made to the domestic market were permissible and the demand could be raised under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis: A 100% Export Oriented Unit is permitted to make DTA sales within the policy framework, provided the goods are manufactured in the unit. Once the clearances were treated by the Department itself as sale transactions for assessment purposes, the premise that there was no sale could not be accepted. The duty proposal based on treating the goods as if they were assessable under the main charging provision instead of the proviso was therefore unsustainable. The exemption claim was also not defeated by any finding of use of duty-free imported raw material.

Conclusion: The DTA clearances were permissible and duty could not be demanded in the manner proposed.

Issue (iii): whether the demand of duty, interest, penalty and confiscation could survive

Analysis: The demand itself having failed, the ancillary liabilities could not stand independently. Interest, penalty and confiscation were consequential to the duty demand and therefore could not be sustained once the substantive demand was set aside.

Conclusion: The duty demand, interest, penalty and confiscation were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, and the impugned demand and all consequential liabilities were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where processing converts supplied materials into a new commercially distinct product, the activity is manufacture and not job work; and a 100% Export Oriented Unit's domestic clearances, when otherwise permissible under the policy, cannot be denied merely on the basis that title in the input materials remained with the customer.

---