Job-work valuation excludes Modvat-credit input duty, and disclosed price lists defeat suppression for extended limitation.

In job-work valuation under the Central Excise valuation rules, duty paid on inputs on which Modvat credit was taken was not includible in the assessable value, because the input duty was not recovered again from the customer as part of the sale price. The Tribunal treated earlier Supreme Court authorities as distinguishable and followed its own later view on the same valuation issue. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the price lists disclosed the net-of-CVD valuation basis, and the undisclosed credit-note arrangement did not amount to suppression. The valuation demand and connected penalty therefore did not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the duty paid on inputs, in respect of which Modvat credit was taken, was includible in the assessable value for valuation of the job-worked goods; and (ii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the footing of suppression.

Issue (i): whether the duty paid on inputs, in respect of which Modvat credit was taken, was includible in the assessable value for valuation of the job-worked goods.

Analysis: The valuation dispute turned on the application of the excise valuation rules to goods manufactured on job work using customer-supplied inputs. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that, where duty had been paid on inputs and credit had been availed under the Modvat scheme, such input duty was not to be added again while computing the assessable value. The cited Supreme Court decisions were distinguished as turning on the deduction of duty relatable to the final product under a different valuation setting, whereas the present case involved job work with no recovery of input duty from the customer as part of the sale price. The reasoning in the later Tribunal decision on the same issue was applied.

Conclusion: The duty paid on inputs availed as Modvat credit was not includible in the assessable value. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the footing of suppression.

Analysis: The price lists filed from 1987 onwards disclosed that the valuation was on a net-of-CVD basis, placing the Department on notice of the relevant valuation method. The internal arrangement between the job worker and the principal manufacturer regarding credit notes did not alter the fact that the material valuation position was already disclosed. On that basis, the non-disclosure of the credit-note arrangement did not amount to suppression for the purpose of invoking the longer limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not attracted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The valuation demand and connected penalty did not survive, and the assessee obtained relief on both merits and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: In job-work valuation under the Central Excise valuation rules, duty paid on inputs on which Modvat credit is taken is not includible in the assessable value, and disclosure of the valuation basis in price lists defeats a plea of suppression for extending limitation.

---