Excise valuation for controlled job work turns on supplier control, with earlier allowed deductions remaining applicable.

Excise valuation in a controlled manufacturing arrangement turned on whether the processor was an independent job worker or merely an agent of the raw material supplier. Because the supplier controlled inputs, machinery, production scheduling, quality inspection and marketing, and the processor had no independent title or real autonomy, valuation on a cost of raw materials plus job charges basis was rejected. The discussion also notes that deductions already recognised in an earlier valuation order between the same parties applied to the relevant period, so those permissible deductions were allowed and the assessable value had to be redetermined accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was an independent job worker entitled to valuation on the basis of cost of raw materials plus job charges, or whether it was merely an agent of the raw material supplier so that the assessable value had to continue on the basis of the supplier's sale price. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to the deductions already held permissible in its own earlier valuation order.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was an independent job worker entitled to valuation on the basis of cost of raw materials plus job charges, or whether it was merely an agent of the raw material supplier so that the assessable value had to continue on the basis of the supplier's sale price.

Analysis: The agreement showed close control of the supplier over the manufacture. The supplier provided raw materials, packing materials and machinery, fixed the work programme, inspected quality, could reject defective goods, and retained marketing control. The assessee had no independent title to the goods and no real autonomy in the manufacturing activity. On these facts, the relationship was not on a principal-to-principal basis. The case was closer to the earlier decision relied on by the Revenue than to the independent job-work situation in which valuation is based on raw material cost and processing charges.

Conclusion: The claim for valuation on the basis of cost of raw materials plus job charges was rejected and the assessee was not treated as an independent manufacturer for that purpose.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to the deductions already held permissible in its own earlier valuation order.

Analysis: The earlier Tribunal order between the same parties for a different period had already settled the permissible deductions for valuation. That determination was applicable to the present assessment dispute as well.

Conclusion: The alternate plea was allowed and the assessee was held entitled to the deductions earlier found permissible.

Final Conclusion: The valuation dispute was decided against the assessee on the job-work basis claim, but in its favour on the question of permissible deductions, with fresh assessable value to be determined accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the manufacturing arrangement shows pervasive control, supply of inputs, provision of machinery, and no independent title or autonomy in the processor, the processor cannot be treated as an independent job worker for valuation on cost-plus-job-charges basis; however, a prior binding valuation determination between the same parties governs the permissible deductions for the relevant assessment.

---