Independent job worker processing charges excluded from assessable value; disclosed facts also defeated extended limitation.

Heat fusion charges collected through an independent job worker were not includible in the assessable value of expanded polyethylene sheets because the job worker operated under disclosed lease arrangements on a principal-to-principal basis and was not shown to be a dummy. The excise demand was also time-barred, as the relevant arrangements had been disclosed to departmental officers and no wilful suppression of material facts was established to justify the extended limitation period. On those facts, the duty demand and penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the heat fusion charges collected through the job worker were includible in the assessable value of the expanded polyethylene sheets; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): whether the heat fusion charges collected through the job worker were includible in the assessable value of the expanded polyethylene sheets

Analysis: The arrangement between the manufacturer and the job worker was supported by lease agreements for use of the premises and machinery, and the job worker operated as an independent entity. The goods were sent for job work and then moved to the customers, and the record did not establish that the job worker was a dummy or that the processing charges represented an element that had to be added to the assessable value under the excise valuation scheme.

Conclusion: The heat fusion charges were not includible in the assessable value.

Issue (ii): whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression of facts

Analysis: The agreements and the arrangement with the job worker had been disclosed to the departmental officers from time to time. On those facts, the Department could not attribute wilful suppression of material facts to the appellant so as to justify the longer period of limitation. In any event, the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could not be invoked.

Final Conclusion: The demand of duty and the penalties were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where processing is carried out by an independent job worker under a disclosed arrangement on a principal-to-principal basis, and the relevant facts are made known to the Department, the processing charges are not automatically includible in assessable value and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked absent wilful suppression.

---