Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1996 DIGILAW 2170 (SC)

Appellate Collector Of Central Excise v. Wadpack Private LTD.

1996-11-06

K.VENKATASWAMI, S.P.BHARUCHA

body1996
(1) THE respondent was entrusted by M/s. ITC Ltd., Bangalore, with the job work of supplying corrugated boxes. For this purpose ITC supplied the required kraft paper. (These facts are taken from the Special Leave Petition itself and are not in dispute). (2) THE respondent claimed the benefit of an Exemption Notification dated 31/1/1975 issued under Rule 8(1 of the central Excise Rules, 1944,exempting goods "manufactured in A factory as a job work from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in 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 item 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." (3) THE High court came to the conclusion in the writ petition that was filed by the respondent that the respondent was entitled to such exemption, and it is the order of the High court which is under challenge by the Revenue. (4) THE very Notification has been analysed by this court in Prestige Engineering(India) Ltd. & Ors. v. Collector of central Excise, Meerut & Ors., 1994 (73 E.L.T. 497 (S.C.) = 1994 (6 SCC 465, and this court has held that the insistence of the Revenue upon the same article being returned to the customer after undergoing the manufacturing process at the hands of the job worker would rob the Notification of substance. It had to be remembered that the Notification was intended to help factories doing job work, which were charging their customers only for the work done by them. In their hands the value of the article was the value of the job work done by them and not the total value of the article, which would have been the case but for the Notification. (5) THE judgment aforesaid clearly covers the case before us. Following it, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.