Job-work valuation and revenue neutrality: scrap value not added twice, and extended limitation fails without suppression.

In a job-work manufacturing arrangement, the scrap retained and sold by the job worker is not to be added again to the assessable value where the inputs are supplied by the principal manufacturer and the valuation base already reflects the relevant cost structure. The note also states that the extended limitation period and penalty are unsustainable where the show cause notice rests on records and correspondence already disclosed to the department, so suppression with intent to evade duty is not established. Revenue neutrality, because duty paid by the job worker would be available as credit to the principal manufacturer, further weighs against invocation of the extended period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value of scrap retained and sold by the job worker was required to be included again in the assessable value of the goods manufactured on job-work basis; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation and the penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the value of scrap retained and sold by the job worker was required to be included again in the assessable value of the goods manufactured on job-work basis.

Analysis: The goods were manufactured from inputs supplied by the principal manufacturer under a job-work arrangement. The Tribunal relied on the principle that where the intermediate product is not exigible at the hands of the job worker, and the value of the inputs and job charges already form the basis of valuation, the value of scrap cannot be added twice. It followed the line of authority that in such a job-work situation, if the scrap value is already factored into the cost structure or the intermediate product is otherwise not separately liable, a further addition of scrap value does not arise.

Conclusion: The inclusion of the scrap value in the assessable value was not justified and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and the penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The show cause notice was founded on records and correspondence already disclosed to the department, including periodic returns and intimation letters. On those facts, the Tribunal found no basis for alleging suppression with intent to evade duty. It also treated the case as revenue neutral because any duty paid by the job worker would be available as credit to the principal manufacturer, which weighed against invocation of the extended period. In view of that conclusion, further examination of quantification issues was unnecessary.

Conclusion: The extended period and the penalty were unsustainable and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the demand and penalty could not be sustained, and consequential relief followed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a job-work manufacture where the principal manufacturer supplies the inputs and the transaction is revenue neutral, the scrap value cannot be added again to the assessable value, and the extended period cannot be invoked absent suppression established on the disclosed record.

---