Job-work valuation and pre-levy clearances: duty based on job-worker stage value, with extended limitation and penalty unsustainable.

For textile job work under Rule 12B, excise duty was assessable at the job worker's clearance stage on the Ujagar Prints basis of raw material cost plus job charges, because post-return cutting and packing did not amount to manufacture and the later sale price could not be adopted for valuation. For grey fabrics manufactured before levy came into force, duty could not be fastened merely because clearance occurred later; liability arises on manufacture, and the department's prior awareness negatived suppression, so the extended period and penalty under Section 11AC were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, under Rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the Board circular, duty on textile goods sent to a job worker was payable on the sale price adopted by the assessee after cutting and packing, or on the value at the job worker's premises based on raw material cost plus job charges; (ii) whether duty, penalty, and the extended period could be sustained for grey fabrics manufactured before 31-3-2003 but cleared after levy was introduced.

Issue (i): whether, under Rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the Board circular, duty on textile goods sent to a job worker was payable on the sale price adopted by the assessee after cutting and packing, or on the value at the job worker's premises based on raw material cost plus job charges.

Analysis: Rule 12B treated the person getting textile goods manufactured on job work as responsible for discharge of duty, while the circular clarified that duty was to be discharged when the goods were cleared from the job worker's premises. The valuation method followed the Ujagar Prints principle, namely cost of raw materials plus job charges. The assessee's later activities of cutting and packing did not amount to manufacture, so the post-return sale value could not be adopted for excise valuation.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the correct valuation was the job-worker stage value and not the subsequent sale price.

Issue (ii): whether duty, penalty, and the extended period could be sustained for grey fabrics manufactured before 31-3-2003 but cleared after levy was introduced.

Analysis: Liability to excise duty arises with manufacture, not merely on clearance, and goods manufactured when no levy existed could not be subjected to duty simply because they were cleared later. On the facts, the department was already aware of the assessee's activities, so suppression was not established and the longer limitation period was unavailable. In the absence of duty liability, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also could not survive.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; no duty, penalty, or extended limitation was sustainable on the pre-levy goods.

Final Conclusion: The demand was unsustainable both on valuation and on the pre-levy clearances, resulting in complete relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For textile job work under Rule 12B, excise duty is assessable at the job worker's clearance stage on raw material cost plus job charges, and goods manufactured before levy cannot be charged merely because they are cleared later.

---