Job-work valuation precedent applies only after verifying duty payment on the final product's total value, including free material.

Job-work valuation required verification of whether the principal manufacturer had paid duty on the total value of the final product, including the value of free-supplied material. The tribunal held that the precedent on such clearances could not be applied mechanically unless that foundational fact was established on record. Because the adjudicating authority had proceeded without verifying the duty-payment premise, the matter required fresh examination. The order was set aside and the dispute remanded for reconsideration after necessary factual verification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the value of free material supplied by the principal manufacturer for job work was includible and whether reliance on the precedent was sustainable without verification that duty had been paid on the total value of the final product.

Analysis: The controversy turned on application of the precedent governing job-work clearances where the principal manufacturer had discharged duty on the total value of the final product. The record showed that the Adjudicating Authority proceeded on the assumption that such duty payment had been made, but no verification had been undertaken. Since the precedent was founded on that factual premise, its ratio could not be applied mechanically without first confirming the foundational fact. The matter therefore required fresh examination by the Adjudicating Authority.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after verifying whether duty had been paid on the total value of the final product including the value of the free material.

Final Conclusion: The order under challenge was set aside and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration on the necessary factual verification.

Ratio Decidendi: A precedent on job-work valuation can be applied only when its foundational factual premise is established on record; absent verification of that fact, remand for fresh adjudication is appropriate.

---