Notional credit and job-work entitlement turned on unexamined factual issues, leading to quashing and remand for fresh adjudication.

Entitlement to higher notional credit under Rule 57-B in a job-work arrangement could not be decided because the authorities had not examined whether raw materials were transferred to job workers, whether credit could be taken on inputs already purchased by the principal manufacturer, or whether duty arose on returned goods. Those unanswered factual and legal issues meant the Tribunal's order was unsustainable. The Bombay High Court quashed the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal's order required interference for not examining the material issues arising from the claim of higher notional credit and the job-work arrangement.

Analysis: The dispute concerned entitlement to higher notional credit under Rule 57-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the context of raw materials supplied to job workers and the return of intermediate goods and waste. The material questions whether the raw materials were transferred to job workers, whether the job workers could take credit on inputs already purchased by the principal manufacturer, and whether duty could be payable on the returned goods, were not examined by the authorities below. As the controversy turned on these unanswered factual and legal issues, the existing order could not be sustained without a fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was quashed and the matter was remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law.

---