Double excise duty on job-work goods barred where no further manufacture occurs; excisability and limitation remain item-specific.

Duty already paid on goods at an independent job worker's premises cannot be demanded again from the assessee where no further manufacturing process is carried out after receipt. Whether processing of spare parts amounts to manufacture must be determined item by item, by examining whether the operations such as plating, cutting, drilling, forging or grinding bring into existence a new identifiable excisable product. Omission of essential particulars in classification lists may amount to misstatement and justify invocation of the extended limitation period; on that basis, the longer period was considered available, while the penalty issue was left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether duty already paid on parts at the job workers' premises could again be demanded from the assessee, (ii) whether the processes applied to the spare parts resulted in manufacture of excisable goods, and (iii) whether the extended period of limitation was attracted on account of suppression or misstatement.

Issue (i): whether duty already paid on parts at the job workers' premises could again be demanded from the assessee

Analysis: The goods in question had in some instances already suffered duty at the hands of independent job workers. Where no further process of manufacture was undertaken by the assessee, the same goods could not be subjected to duty again in the assessee's hands. The conclusion was expressly confined to cases where the goods did not undergo any further manufacturing process after receipt by the assessee.

Conclusion: Duty once charged at the job workers' factories could not be charged a second time over again, subject to the absence of further manufacture by the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the processes applied to the spare parts resulted in manufacture of excisable goods

Analysis: The record showed different kinds of processing such as chromium plating, zinc plating, cutting, drilling, forging, grinding and similar operations. Some processes may amount to manufacture while others may not, depending on whether a new identifiable excisable product came into existence. The adjudicating authority had not examined each item on its own merits to determine whether the particular process resulted in manufacture.

Conclusion: The question of excisability required fresh item-wise determination and the earlier finding could not stand as it was.

Issue (iii): whether the extended period of limitation was attracted on account of suppression or misstatement

Analysis: The letter relied upon by the assessee was found to be vague and uncertain, and the classification lists did not adequately disclose the relevant particulars. The omission to state essential matters in the classification list was treated as misstatement, attracting the longer limitation period under the applicable rule.

Conclusion: The extended limitation period was attracted and the demand was not confined to the shorter period.

Final Conclusion: The original adjudication was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication on merits, while the limitation objection was rejected and the issue of penalty was left open.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty cannot be levied twice on the same goods if they have already suffered duty and undergo no further manufacture, but classification omissions amounting to misstatement can justify invocation of the longer limitation period; excisability must be decided item-wise on whether manufacture of a new identifiable product results.

---