TMI Blog1985 (6) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is done on spring steel flats, which are in the form of flat steel bars in lengths varying from 8 to 20 feet, which were received by the appellants after paying duty under Item 26-AA. These flat bars were subjected to the following processes in the factory of the appellants: (i) Cutting of bars into smaller pieces, lengthwise; (ii) Drilling of each piece with a hole in the center, some pieces also being drilled with one or two holes at each end; and (iii) Subjection of such pieces after drilling to heat treatment in a furnace and subsequent immersion in quenching oil which brings about hardening and tempering of the bars. Appellants have pointed out that after undertaking the above job work, the products are returned in loose co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that the value of raw material should be added to the job charges for the purpose of payment of duty. This stand was upheld at the level first of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Faridabad, and then the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. It is against this latter order that the appellants have come in appeal before us. 4. Shri Lachman Dev, Consultant, has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri H. L. Verma, SDR, along with Shri S.C. Rohatgi, JDR, on behalf of the department. 5. The appellants have contended before us that since in their case the flat steel bars were being returned to the suppliers after undertaking job work and on payment of job charges, their case was covered fully by Notification N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2396 (CEGAT) in the case of M/s. Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., Madras v. C.C.E., Madras. (4) 1985 E.L.T. 80 (Bombay) in the case of M/s. Noble Paints and Varnish Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others. (5) 1984 ECR 2133 (CEGAT) in the case of M/s. Ajit India Pvt. Ltd., Madras v. CCE, Madras. 8. On behalf of the department, Shri H. L. Verma, SDR, and Shri S.C. Rohatgi, JDR, have reiterated the view taken in the order-in-appeal. It is stated that, as per the wordings of Notification No. 119/75, exemption; is available when the same article is being returned after subjecting it to job processing. It is claimed that, in this particular case, the goods that are being received are in the nature of flat bars and these are convert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there have been the following decisions of this Tribunal:- (a) Orissa Construction Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise (1983 E.L.T. 2382). (b) Indian Steel Rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise (1983 E.L.T. 2396). (c) Waldies Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (Order No. C-17/83, dated 22nd February, 1983, in Appeal No. 177/80-C). (d) M/s. Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore (1984 ECR 1750). 10. With a view to clear any doubts as regards interpretations of the above decisions, a larger Bench of this Tribunal was constituted in the case of M/s. National Organic Chemical Industries Limited, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (Order No. 70/84-C, dated 25-1-198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same to a manufacturing process in the nature of a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product and then return the same article to the supplier, recovering from him charges for such job work only. It is conceded that the demand for duty or the claim for exemption can arise only on emergence of a new product. However, the importance of the use of the words that article in the explanation to the notification was given importance and it was held that a correct interpretation would be that, for availing exemption under the relevant notification, the article entrusted for job work should, after the application of the manufacturing process by the job worker, not lose its essential identity entirely but should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c material received, to the extent that such basic material loses its identity. It appears to us that the answer to this question has to be in the negative. 12. In the Order-in-Appeal, we find that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had taken due note of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Anup Engineering Limited. He has, however, rejected the appeal on the basis of his finding that he disagrees with the findings of Gujarat High Court. Obviously, such a stand is not sustainable. 13. On behalf of the department, a lot of stress has been laid on the import of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. Metal Forgings Private Limited v. Union of India. We have carefully gone through this judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
