BackgroundAluminium colour-coated coils belonging to the appellant (principal), returned by its job worker Roofstyle Industries, were intercepted on 04.05.2023 under a job-work invoice of Rs. 1,841, a return e-way bill showing nil quantity, and the original delivery challan. Penalty of Rs. 2,50,884 was imposed under Section 129(3) for want of a valid delivery challan and e-way bill, and was upheld in first appeal. Before the Tribunal, Revenue argued that the e-way bill had to reflect the Rs. 6,96,900 value of the material.Final VerdictThe Tribunal found that the SCN rested on facts falsified by the department’s own records: the job-work tax invoice, the principal’s delivery challan (as required by Circular 38/12/2018) and e-way bill No. 521496456415 were all tendered at interception. The adjudication order impermissibly introduced a new ground of an “invalid” e-way bill and was non-speaking, while the appellate order relied on a ground outside the SCN (an e-way bill from A.S. Metals); Revenue’s attempt to improve the SCN at the Tribunal stage was rejected. On the question of law, reading Explanation 2 to Rule 138 with Section 15, it held that on return after job work the supply is only of job-work services, so the consignment value is the job-work charges plus tax, and the value of the principal’s goods is not includable in the e-way bill. As the consignment value of Rs. 1,841 was below the Rs. 50,000 threshold, no e-way bill was mandatory and proceedings for a defective or missing e-way bill were void ab initio. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.