Rule 57F(2) does not shift excise duty liability to job workers when processed goods are sent back to the manufacturer.

Where inputs are sent for purification under Rule 57F(2), the duty burden does not shift to the job worker merely because the manufacturer has not claimed Modvat credit. The procedure under the rule contemplates return of the processed goods to the manufacturer's factory, so liability remains tied to the manufacturer who invokes that route. The broader question whether the purification process amounts to manufacture was left open, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on that issue, with limitation also kept open for reconsideration if required.

---

---

Issues: Whether, where no Modvat credit had been claimed on the inputs, the responsibility to pay duty on goods processed by job workers could be shifted away from the assessee under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The inputs were sent for purification under the procedure prescribed by Rule 57F(2), but the assessee had not availed Modvat credit. The rule contemplates return of the processed goods to the factory of the manufacturer who follows that procedure. On that footing, the liability to pay duty could not be transferred to the job workers merely because the assessee had opted for that procedure. The larger question whether the purification amounted to manufacture was not determined, and limitation was also left open for reconsideration in the de novo stage.

Conclusion: The contention that duty liability rested on the job workers was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on whether the process amounted to manufacture, after which the case was to be decided on merits, including limitation if necessary.

Ratio Decidendi: Where processed goods are sent under Rule 57F(2), the duty liability remains tied to the manufacturer who invokes that procedure and is not shifted to the job worker merely by reason of such movement.

---