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. "

( 2 ) SINCE there is no dispute as to the facts found by the tribunal, we shall state the relevant facts from the order under appeal. As a matter of fact, a number of questions were raised before the tribunal, of which we are concerned only with one, viz. , the one pertaining to the Notification No. 119/75. We shall, therefore, state the facts insofar as they are relevant to the said question.

( 3 ) THE appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s Modipon Limited, Modi Nagar whereunder Modipon was to supply steel pipes from which the appellant was to manufacture cops (falling under Tariff Item No. 68 of the central Excise Tariff Schedule in force at the relevant time ). The process of manufacture of new cops is stated by the tribunal it is in fact drawn from the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant before the tribunal in the following words :

"fabrication of new cops is carried out by first fitting the guide rings and strengthening rings in the steel pipes which are obtained from the customer. The centre guide rings and the strengthening rings are purchased. This was being done without the aid of power, i. e. , by hand. After the rings were fitted, the adopters were also fitted on the sides of a cop in the same manner as it is done for repairs. The plastic sleeves are then fitted on cylinders of the cop. All this process is carried out without the aid of power in the factory. "

( 4 ) FROM the above process, it is clear that Modipon supplied steel pipes only. The appellant purchased centre guide rings and the strengthening rings which were fitted inside the steel pipes to lend them strength. After the rings were so fitted, adopters were fitted on the sides of the cops and thereafter plastic sleeves fitted on the cylinders of the cops. Though in the above extract, it was asserted by the appellant that all the said process was carried out without the aid of power, it was admitted before the tribunal (paragraph 11 of the order under appeal) that the process of fitting the inner rings, strengthening rings and guide rings was got done by the appellant through another unit with the aid of power. Be that as it may, the question is whether the benefit of Notification No. 119/75 can be claimed by the appellant? If the appellant is not able to claim the benefit of the notification, the value of cops manufactured by it would be its full value including the value of steel pipes supplied by Modipon. But in case the notification enures to his benefit, he would be liable to pay duty only on the value of the job work undertaken by him. In short, the question is whether the manufacturing process undertaken by him was in the nature of job work within the meaning of the notification?

( 5 ) THE crucial words employed in the notification are "goods falling under I