Job-work diversion to repair use attracts duty, extended limitation, and company penalty, while director penalty fails

Goods sent for job work under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. remain dutiable when the returned goods are diverted from manufacture and used for repair of old transformers, because such diversion amounts to home consumption without payment of duty. Suppression of the true use and clearance supported invocation of the extended period, as later intimation did not establish departmental knowledge within time. Penalty was considered appropriate for the company, though reduced on quantum, while the director's penalty was not sustained in the absence of a specific charge of knowledge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants, after sending raw material under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and receiving transformer oil back from the job worker, were liable to pay duty when the oil was used in repair of old transformers; (ii) whether the demand was within limitation under the extended period; and (iii) whether penalty was imposable on the company and its director.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants, after sending raw material under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and receiving transformer oil back from the job worker, were liable to pay duty when the oil was used in repair of old transformers.

Analysis: The notification exempted job-work manufacture subject to the undertaking that the goods would be used in manufacture in the appellants' factory or removed on payment of duty for home consumption. The appellants had furnished such undertaking, but the transformer oil was not used in manufacture of final products and was instead diverted for repair use, which amounted to removal for home consumption without payment of duty. In that situation, liability to duty remained on the appellants, and the jurisdiction to demand duty lay with the proper officer having jurisdiction over their factory.

Conclusion: The duty demand against the appellants was sustainable and the liability was in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was within limitation under the extended period.

Analysis: The appellants did not disclose during the relevant period that the transformer oil was being cleared without payment of duty or used in repair of old transformers. The later intimation letter did not establish departmental knowledge during the period of demand. Therefore, suppression of material facts justified invocation of the proviso to the limitation provision.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was correctly invoked and the demand was not time-barred.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty was imposable on the company and its director.

Analysis: Since duty had been evaded on goods used without payment of duty, penalty was warranted on the company. However, the penalty needed to be commensurate with the circumstances and was reduced. As no specific charge of knowledge was made out against the director, penalty on him was not sustainable.

Conclusion: Penalty on the company was upheld in reduced form and penalty on the director was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal of the company succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of penalty, while the appeal of the director was allowed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are received back from a job worker under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and are diverted for home consumption without payment of duty, the supplier who furnished the undertaking remains liable to duty, the extended limitation may be invoked on suppression, and penalty may be imposed though its quantum is discretionary.

---