Modvat credit on job-work materials denied where statutory procedure was not followed and material facts were suppressed.

Modvat credit was held inadmissible where copper and silicon were allegedly used by a job-worker but no duty-paid evidence or maintained record of such use existed, and the retention of aluminium against material cost and job charges did not comply with the prescribed job-work procedure. The arrangement was inconsistent with Rule 57F(2), so credit was denied. On limitation, suppression of the retention arrangement and related facts from the department justified invocation of the extended period, so the demand was not time-barred. The demand, penalty, and denial of credit were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be claimed on copper and silicon allegedly used by the job-worker when part of the principal inputs was retained by the job-worker towards the cost of those materials and job charges; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could not be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be claimed on copper and silicon allegedly used by the job-worker when part of the principal inputs was retained by the job-worker towards the cost of those materials and job charges.

Analysis: The appellant accepted that the job-worker retained aluminium equivalent to the value of copper, silicon and job work charges. There was no evidence of duty payment on the copper used in the intermediate product, no maintained record of such use, and no provision under the rules permitting credit on materials used at the job-worker's end in the manner adopted. The arrangement of retaining inputs in lieu of cost adjustment was inconsistent with the requirements governing despatch and receipt under Rule 57F(2).

Conclusion: The claim to Modvat credit was not admissible and the finding against the appellant was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could not be invoked.

Analysis: The retention arrangement and the relevant facts were not disclosed to the departmental , and the appellant's manner of accounting for the transaction was not proper under the statutory procedure. In these circumstances, suppression of material facts was established, supporting invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was not time-barred and the extended period was correctly applied.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand, penalty, and denial of credit were sustained, and the appeal failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit under the Central Excise Rules cannot be claimed for materials used at the job-worker's end when the statutory procedure for job work and return of inputs is not complied with and material facts are suppressed from the department.

---