B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C.SEN
Prestige Engineering India LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise, Meerut – Respondent
Judgment
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY
( 1 ) THIS appeal preferred under Section 35-L of the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 raises a question as to the true meaning and purport of Notification No. 119/75-C. E. dated 30/4/1975 issued by the central government under Rule 8 (1 of the central Excise Rules, 1944. The notification reads as follows :
"notification Exemption to goods produced on the job work basis : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1 of Rule 8 of the central Excise Rules, 1944, the central government hereby exempts goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944, manufactured in a factory as a job work from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is excess of the duty calculated on the basis of the amount charged for the job work. Explanation. For the purposes of this notification, the expression job work shall mean such items of work where an article intended to undergo manufacturing process is supplied to the job worker and that article is returned by the job worker to the supplier, after the article has undergone the intended manufacturing process, on charging only for the job work done by him. "
considered and discussed : Madura Coats Ltd. v. Collector of central Excise
Collector of central Excise v. Madura Coats Ltd.
Bapalal and Co. v. Govt. of India
Madura Coats Ltd. v. Superintendent of central Excise
National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Collector of central Excise
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.