EOU's PCB population process constitutes manufacture, job-worker liable for duty without proper exemption compliance

CESTAT Bangalore held that a 100% EOU's process of populating PCBs constituted manufacture, as raw materials were transformed into commercially distinct products. The job-worker appellant was liable for duty payment since mandatory conditions for exemption under principal-to-principal basis were not satisfied. However, the tribunal found suppression could not be invoked beyond normal limitation period due to department's prior knowledge. The case was remanded for verification of documents showing whether raw material suppliers had already paid duty or claimed exemptions, which would reduce appellant's liability. Penalties were set aside pending re-quantification of demand.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the processes undertaken by the appellant on job work basis amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Whether the duty liability is on the appellant who is a job-worker or the suppliers of raw materials.
3. Whether the proviso to Section 11A can be invoked.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the processes undertaken by the appellant on job work basis amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:

The Tribunal examined Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which defines "manufacture" to include any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. The Tribunal found that the process of populating PCBs by the appellant constitutes manufacture since it transforms raw materials into a new product, i.e., populated PCBs, which are commercially distinct from plain PCBs. This transformation satisfies the criteria set forth by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV Versus Fitrite Packers, where the Court held that a process amounts to manufacture if it results in a new product with a distinctive name, character, or use. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the processes undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. Whether the duty liability is on the appellant who is a job-worker or the suppliers of raw materials:

The Tribunal examined the appellant's contention that the duty liability should rest on the suppliers of raw materials under Notification No. 214/86-CE and No. 83/1994-CE. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not comply with the conditions specified in these notifications, such as the requirement for the suppliers to file declarations with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal, which held that conditions in exemption notifications must be strictly complied with. The Tribunal also cited CBIC Circular No. 56/56/94-CX, which clarifies that where the relationship between the raw materials supplier and the job-worker is on a principal-to-principal basis, the job-worker is the actual manufacturer and liable to pay duty. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the duty liability rests on the appellant.

3. Whether the proviso to Section 11A can be invoked:

The Tribunal examined whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A could be invoked. The appellant argued that the department was aware of their job work activities since 2009, as evidenced by an audit conducted that year. The Tribunal found that the department was indeed aware of the appellant's activities in 2009, but the show-cause notice was issued only in 2013, beyond the normal period of limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and the demand could only be sustained for the normal period.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal confirmed the demands only for the normal period and set aside the penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 25. The appeals were remanded for re-quantification of the demand based on the Tribunal's observations, with an emphasis on verifying the documents produced by the appellant to substantiate their claims that the goods were either exempted or cleared on payment of duty. The Tribunal also emphasized the need for the appellant to cooperate in providing the necessary documents and details for the relevant periods.

---