Job-work valuation excludes free inputs where the principal manufacturer clears the final product; pre-notice duty payment with interest defeats penalty.

In a job-work arrangement where the principal manufacturer receives the processed goods back, completes manufacture, and clears the final product on payment of duty, the value of free-of-cost raw materials received under Rule 57F(4) challans was not required to be added to the job worker's assessable value. The Tribunal followed prior authority on the same factual setting and held the duty demand unsustainable. It further held that penalty was not sustainable where duty, along with interest, had already been paid before the show cause notice. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value of free-of-cost raw materials received under Rule 57F(4) challans was required to be included in the assessable value when the job worker returned the processed goods to the supplier, who completed manufacture and discharged duty; (ii) Whether penalty and interest were sustainable where duty had been paid with interest before issuance of the show cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether the value of free-of-cost raw materials received under Rule 57F(4) challans was required to be included in the assessable value when the job worker returned the processed goods to the supplier, who completed manufacture and discharged duty.

Analysis: The facts were held to be materially different from the situation in which the job worker himself clears the final product. In the present arrangement, the raw materials were received free under Rule 57F(4) challans, the processed goods were sent back to the supplier, and the supplier alone completed manufacture and cleared the final product on payment of duty. The supplier also took the value of the raw materials into account while arriving at the assessable value. In these circumstances, the earlier Tribunal view in an identical factual setting was followed, and the cost of the free inputs was not treated as forming part of the assessable value in the hands of the job worker.

Conclusion: The inclusion of the free-input value in the assessable value was not justified, and the duty demand could not be sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty and interest were sustainable where duty had been paid with interest before issuance of the show cause notice.

Analysis: Since the duty with interest had already been paid before the show cause notice, the penal consequence was not warranted. The reasoning relied on the principle that, in such circumstances, imposition of penalty is not sustainable.

Conclusion: Penalty and related demand were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In a job-work arrangement where the principal manufacturer completes the manufacture and clears the final product on payment of duty, the value of free inputs received under Rule 57F(4) challans need not be added to the job worker's assessable value, and penalty is not sustainable when duty with interest has been paid before the show cause notice.

---