S. Duggal, Member (J)

1. The issue involved in this appeal, which was originally a revision petition before the Central Government, is as to the availability of benefit of Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated April 30, 1975 to appellants, in respect to the manufacturing process they carried out on brass rods received from their customers, by making valves and nuts, meant for different parts of LPG cylinders.

2. The facts as set out in the appeal, and also as indicated by the Order-in-Appeal, reveal that the appellants received from certain named customers brass rods by way of raw material for the manufacture of forged nuts and valve body forged and machined on job basis during period 1-7-1975 to 31-12-1975. They paid duty on job work charges received by them from their customers, in terms of Notification No. 119/75, while the excise authorities took the view subsequently that value of the raw material had also to be included, inasmuch as the appellants manufacture complete equipment for cylinders, out of the raw material received from the customers, and as such, they had erroneously been allowed benefit of aforesaid Notification. Thus, a short levy demand on account of duty, on full assessable value of the nuts and valves cleared by the appellants, and delivered back to the customers, was raised which the appellants resisted. The Assistant Collector rejected their pleas on the view that the terms of Notification were clear to the effect that "only when an article is received from a customer and returned after some job work being carried out in respect thereto, that this Notification could apply, and not in cases where only the raw material such as brass rods or MS rods had been received, and complete identifiable parts, involving complete transformation into equipment for cylinders, had been manufactured.

3. On an appeal being carried to the Appellate Collector, he confirmed order of the Assistant Collector, inspite of appellants' arguments, as put forward through their Consultant, placing reliance specifically on a Trade Notice No. 99/75 dated 28-5-1975 clarifying with regard to the Notification under reference that it was not essential that the article received and article returned should have the same nomenclature.

4. The appellants, while filing revision petition, reiterated their plea that scope of Notification No. 119/75 was very explicit, and admitted of no doubt, that whenever an article, which term according to them, would include raw material such as brass rods, so received from customer and returned by the job worker to the supplier after carrying out the intended manufacturing process, by charging only for labour or job work, then excise duty only on the amount of such job work charges was to be recovered from the party concerned. They pleaded that lower authorities had erred in holding that what the appellant had received from the customer was not "the article", as contemplated by the Notification, or that what they did in respect thereto did not fall within the purview of the said Notification. They again placed reliance on Trade Notice No. 99 (MP), dated 28th May, 1975 in respect to this Notification, setting out in clear terms that so long it may be shown that the job worker was returning an article supplied to him after subjecting it to the manufacturing process, the exemption under Notification No. 119/75 would appear to be applicable, irrespective of trade nomenclature of the article at the time of receipt and at the time of despatch ; i.e., after subjecting it to a manufacturing process. The appellants contended that their case fully fell within the scope of this Trade Notice.

5. After the revision petition was transferred to the Tribunal, and registered as an appeal, and on a notice to that effect being sent to the appellants, they forwarded additional arguments under cover of their letter of September 2, 1984, in which they made reference to certain judgments giving elucidation on the scope of this Notific