Job-work manufacture principle defeats central excise duty and penalty where essential stator processes were outsourced.

Where shaping, varnishing and baking of stators were carried out by job workers, the supplier of raw materials was not the manufacturer for central excise purposes. Contemporaneous records showed that the post-winding operations had been shifted out, and the essential processes making the stators complete and marketable were undertaken at the job workers' premises, so the duty demand on the appellants failed. The penalty under Rule 173Q also could not stand because the duty liability itself collapsed and no sustainable contravention with intent to evade duty was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the processes of shaping, varnishing and baking were carried out at the appellants' service centre so as to render the appellants liable to central excise duty on stators; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the processes of shaping, varnishing and baking were carried out at the appellants' service centre so as to render the appellants liable to central excise duty on stators.

Analysis: The record showed contemporaneous documents indicating that the post-winding operations had been shifted to job workers from about 1-5-1992, with corresponding increase in job work charges. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority had not correctly rejected this plea and that the essential processes which made stators marketable and complete were undertaken at the job workers' premises. It also applied the settled principle that, where manufacturing activity is outsourced, the manufacturer is the job worker and not the supplier of raw materials.

Conclusion: The duty demands on the appellants were not sustainable, as the appellants were not the manufacturers liable for duty on the stators.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable.

Analysis: Since the duty demand itself failed and the appellants were not held to be manufacturers required to obtain excise registration or comply with the consequential excise procedure, the foundation for penal action disappeared. In the absence of any sustainable duty liability or established contravention with intent to evade duty, the penalty could not stand.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed, with the demands and penalty both failing on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the manufacturing processes making the goods complete and marketable are carried out by job workers, the supplier of raw material is not the manufacturer for central excise purposes, and duty and penalty cannot be fastened on that supplier.

---