Job-work excise valuation must reflect intrinsic value; limitation failed where departmental intimation existed and penalty was reduced.

In job-work processing of grey cotton/polyester blended fabrics, assessable value is not limited to processing charges and must reflect the intrinsic value of the processed goods, including the value of material supplied, the job-work element and the manufacturing component. On the facts noted, duty on the grey fabrics was treated as sustainable in principle, but the demand could not extend beyond six months because the clearances were supported by D 3 intimations and no basis for the extended limitation period was established. The penalty was also considered excessive and was reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of duty on grey cotton/polyester blended fabrics processed through a job worker was sustainable and how assessable value was to be determined; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation beyond six months; and (iii) whether the penalty required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of duty on grey cotton/polyester blended fabrics processed through a job worker was sustainable and how assessable value was to be determined.

Analysis: The assessable value of processed fabrics is not confined to processing charges alone. The value has to be determined on the basis of the intrinsic value of the processed goods in accordance with the governing excise principle, which includes the value of the material supplied, the job work element, and the manufacturing component. On the facts, duty had not been shown to have been discharged on the grey fabrics at the relevant stage, and the exemption claim was not accepted.

Conclusion: The duty demand was sustainable in principle, subject to the limitation finding.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation beyond six months.

Analysis: The movement of the fabrics was supported by D 3 intimations to the Department. In those circumstances, the basis for invoking the extended period was not made out, and the demand could not travel beyond the normal six-month period.

Conclusion: The demand beyond six months was barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty required interference.

Analysis: In view of the surrounding circumstances and the limitation finding, the penalty was considered excessive and was reduced.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with the demand restricted by limitation and the penalty substantially reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: In job-work processing cases, excise valuation must reflect the intrinsic value of the goods and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when the clearances were within departmental intimation and no suppression is established.

---