Job-work valuation under excise rules: Rule 6(b)(i) held inapplicable where goods go to the principal manufacturer.

A remand finding did not preclude the assessee from challenging the valuation issue on the substantive appeal, because the earlier dismissal as time-barred did not decide the merits and the appellate forum remained free to examine the legal question. Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 applies only where goods are used or consumed by the assessee, or on his behalf, in the manufacture of other articles. Goods manufactured on job work and cleared to the principal manufacturer did not meet that condition, so the rule was inapplicable and cost-based valuation for job-work clearances was upheld, with demand and penalty not surviving.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could challenge the valuation issue in the present appeal despite the earlier remand and subsequent dismissal of an appeal as time-barred; (ii) Whether Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 applied to goods manufactured on job-work basis and cleared to the principal manufacturer.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could challenge the valuation issue in the present appeal despite the earlier remand and subsequent dismissal of an appeal as time-barred.

Analysis: The earlier remand required the lower authority to determine the limited question whether the goods were comparable and to proceed in accordance with law. The appellate dismissal as time-barred did not decide the legal applicability of the valuation rule on merits. A finding in a remand order does not bind a higher appellate forum when the matter comes up for adjudication on the substantive issue. The legal question regarding applicability of the valuation provision therefore remained open and could be urged in the present appeal.

Conclusion: The issue could validly be raised by the assessee and was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 applied to goods manufactured on job-work basis and cleared to the principal manufacturer.

Analysis: Rule 6(b)(i) applies where excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used or consumed by him, or on his behalf, in the manufacture of other articles. Goods manufactured on job work and returned to the principal manufacturer do not satisfy that condition. Since the goods were not used or consumed by the assessee for further manufacture, the rule could not govern valuation. The proper basis remained valuation on cost construction for the job-work clearances.

Conclusion: Rule 6(b)(i) was inapplicable and the assessee's valuation method was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty could not survive, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand finding does not bind the higher appellate forum on the substantive legal issue, and Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 applies only where goods are used or consumed by the assessee or on his behalf in the manufacture of other articles, not where job-work goods are cleared to the principal manufacturer.

---