Broad job-work exemption under Notification 214/86-C.E. survives use of ancillary inputs, while the time-bar plea fails.

Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was construed to cover job work broadly, including processing or working upon principal-manufacturer supplied materials to complete part or whole of the manufacturing process. The use of some ancillary inputs procured by the job worker, where their cost was recovered from the principal manufacturer, did not by itself destroy the job-work character of the activity, so exemption remained available. On limitation, the demand covered a period within the normal six-month period from the relevant date, and the time-bar objection could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent's activity fell within the meaning of "job work" under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and entitled it to clear the goods without payment of duty; (ii) Whether the demand raised in the show-cause notice was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent's activity fell within the meaning of "job work" under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and entitled it to clear the goods without payment of duty.

Analysis: The notification grants exemption to goods manufactured in a factory as job work, and its Explanation defines job work broadly to include processing or working upon raw materials or semi-finished goods supplied by the principal manufacturer so as to complete part or whole of the process resulting in manufacture or finishing of an article. The scheme of the notification is materially different from the earlier notification relied upon by the Revenue. The use of some inputs procured by the respondent, the cost of which was recovered from the principal manufacturer, did not alter the essentially job-work nature of the activity.

Conclusion: The respondent's activity was correctly treated as job work and the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was admissible; this issue was decided in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand raised in the show-cause notice was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The show-cause notice covered the period November 1998 to April 1999 and was issued on 14 May 1999. The relevant portion of the demand was within the normal period of six months from the relevant date, and the finding of time-bar could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation; this issue was decided against the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed on the merits, although the finding of time-bar recorded by the lower appellate authority was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: For Notification No. 214/86-C.E., job work is to be construed broadly in accordance with the notification's own Explanation, and the presence of some ancillary inputs procured by the job worker does not, by itself, destroy the character of the activity as job work where the goods are processed for the principal manufacturer.

---