9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (6) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided by the notification above referred to and as per notification only job work had been done by the petitioner and no new product having been manufactured by it, quite different from what had been supplied by third respondent, the petitioner is not liable to pay duty under Tariff Item No. 68 as claimed by respondents 1 and 2. First respondent by trade Notice No. 273/77, dated 30-11-1977 claimed that "Fenaplast yarn" produced by twisting different types of duty paid filament and spun yarn material, is assessable to duty under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Act and that the exemption claimed would not be available. By further letter dated 17-3-1978 first respondent again reiterated that as the nylon yarn itself is not returned to the customer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f filament yarn and this job is also carried out by petitioner for which the petitioner charges a sum of Rs. 9/- per kilogram. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that the three types of materials above referred to are combined together by being twisted, and what transpires is only a change in the physical form and the three materials are still identifiable. Whatever materials that had been given, by the third respondent, are returned in toto, without the petitioner supplying any material to form part of what is returned. Therefore, the petitioner comes within the scope of the exemption covered by the notification. 6. Mr. V.K. Thiruvenkatachariar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, to further substantiate this contention, relies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t about the absolute property of third respondent in the articles handed over, but the nature of job work rendered and the resultant product that comes out before the product is returned. According to him when the end-product is not the same which had been handed over for carrying out job work, the exemption sought for should come strictly with the scope of the notification. As for the two decisions relied upon, he would state that as against the decision 1980 E.L.T., 579, the matter has been taken up to Supreme Court. Regarding the other decision, there has been a failure to correctly appreciate the scope of the notification which would apply only in such of those limited cases where only one article is handed over for carrying out job wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d respondent lose their identity and the product that is handed over to the supplier is entirely different, in which the articles supplied cannot be identified and the product that is handed over to the supplier is entirely different, in which the articles supplied cannot be identified, the concession contemplated in the notification would not be available. After the twisting job is effected, the converted product produced before the court shows that all the three articles supplied by third respondent are even perceivable to naked eyes. When the entire quantity supplied by third respondent is returned and not even incidental materials are added while the job work is carried out and all the three articles are found in combination in a partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
