Manufacture by job-work and suppression of clearances justify duty liability and extended limitation under excise procedure.

Non-supply of original invoices did not vitiate adjudication where the invoices were already available to the assessee and no prejudice was shown. Job-work on laminations and winding wire, involving processes such as winding, end cutting, coil setting, core processing and aluminium coating, produced distinct goods described as stators and rotors; the activity was treated as manufacture and attracted duty. The extended period of limitation was held applicable because clearances were made under commercial invoices without departmental intimation, relevant declarations, or proper reflection in statutory records, and no credible bona fide belief of non-excisability was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-supply of the original invoices invalidated the adjudication order; (ii) whether the job-work processes on laminations and winding wire resulted in manufacture of stators and rotors liable to duty; (iii) whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked.

Issue (i): Whether non-supply of the original invoices invalidated the adjudication order.

Analysis: The earlier remand had been made because the grievance regarding non-supply of invoices was not then rebutted. In the remand proceedings, the record showed that the appellants admitted that no records had been recovered from them and that the relevant invoices were referred to in the course of personal hearing. Since copies of the invoices were already available with the appellants, the omission to supply the original invoices did not prejudice the adjudication.

Conclusion: The non-supply of the original invoices did not vitiate the impugned order, and this contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the job-work processes on laminations and winding wire resulted in manufacture of stators and rotors liable to duty.

Analysis: The appellants received raw materials and carried out processes such as winding, end cutting, coil setting, core processing and aluminium coating. The resulting goods were no longer the original materials and were described in the invoices as stators and rotors. No material was produced to show that further processing was necessary before the goods could be treated as finished stators and rotors, nor was it shown that duty had been paid at any later stage.

Conclusion: The activity amounted to manufacture of stators and rotors, and the finding of duty liability was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked.

Analysis: The removal of the goods was undertaken under commercial invoices, but no intimation was given to the Department, no classification list or price list was filed, and the clearances were not reflected in statutory records or returns. No credible basis was shown for any bona fide belief that the goods were non-excisable, and the appellants, being manufacturers of electric fans, were held to have been aware of the excisability of the goods.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was correctly invoked.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural objection to non-supply of documents does not invalidate adjudication where the documents were otherwise available to the assessee and no prejudice is shown; job-work processes that transform raw materials into a distinct excisable product amount to manufacture; and suppression of clearances and failure to comply with excise procedure justify invocation of the extended period.

---