Valuation by job worker and suppression of undervaluation upheld; extended limitation, denial of deemed credit, and penalties sustained.

A job worker under the valuation scheme could be fastened with central excise duty where undervaluation of grey fabrics supplied by merchant-manufacturers was found at its instance, and suppression justified invocation of the extended limitation period. A fresh recomputation of differential duty was not entertained because it was not supported by evidence before the adjudicating authority and was raised for the first time on appeal. Deemed credit was also held inadmissible once short-payment by suppression was established, and the penalties imposed under the central excise provisions were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the job worker could be fastened with central excise duty on the basis of undervaluation of grey fabrics supplied by merchant-manufacturers and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked; (ii) whether the differential duty demand was liable to be reduced on the basis of a fresh working not produced before the adjudicating authority; and (iii) whether deemed credit was inadmissible and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the job worker could be fastened with central excise duty on the basis of undervaluation of grey fabrics supplied by merchant-manufacturers and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Analysis: The scheme under Notification No. 27/92-C.E. (N.T.) required the job worker to furnish value-related information concerning the grey fabrics received and enabled valuation of the processed goods in the hands of the job worker. On the facts, the record indicated undervaluation of the grey fabrics at the instance of the job worker, and the Tribunal held that the job worker could not avoid liability merely by blaming the supplier. Once suppression was found, invocation of the extended period was justified.

Conclusion: The duty demand based on undervaluation was upheld and the extended period was held invocable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the differential duty demand was liable to be reduced on the basis of a fresh working not produced before the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the proposed recomputation was not supported by documentary evidence before the adjudicating authority and was sought to be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage. In view of the appellate rules and the absence of supporting material before the original authority, the fresh working could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The rejection of the reduced duty computation was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether deemed credit was inadmissible and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: Where duty short-payment was established by reason of suppression or misstatement, deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) was not admissible. The Tribunal also found no substantiation for the plea that the credit amount had already been included in the demand. In the same factual setting, the penalties imposed under the central excise provisions were maintained.

Conclusion: Deemed credit was held inadmissible and the penalties were sustained, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the demand, denial of deemed credit, and penalties failed in entirety, and the appellate relief was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A job worker covered by a valuation scheme requiring disclosure of grey-fabric value cannot evade duty liability by attributing undervaluation solely to the supplier, and once suppression is established, the extended period, denial of deemed credit, and consequential penalties may be sustained.

---