Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. In this three Rules the main question is whether or not the petitioner company, was entitled to claim exemption from payment of excise duty in respect of lead suboxide and lead monoxide manufactured in its factory in terms of the Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated 30th April, 1975 issued by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

2. The Finance Act, 1975 had inserted in the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, now Tariff Item No. 68 under which "all other goods not elsewhere specified manufactured in a factory" became subject to duty at the specified rate. In the exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government by the aforesaid Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated 30th April, 1975 had "exempt 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 in excess of the duty calculated on the basis of the amount charged for the job work. During the material period, the petitioner used to receive pig lead or lead ingots from its customers for conversion into lead suboxide and lead monoxide. After subjecting the said lead to the process, mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition filed in C.R. No. 12 (w) of 1981, the petitioner returned the finished products to its customers and charged the agreed price for the said process. The petitioner itself did not supply any material for manufacture of lead sub-oxide and lead monoxide (lithergo) and the petitioner has claimed that in undertaking the aforesaid manufacturing process it performed job work and it was entitled to exemption in terms of the Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated 30th April, 1975.

6. The decision of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Anup Engineering Co v. Union of India 1978 Excise Law Times 533, also supports the view taken by me regarding the scope and effect of the said Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated 30th April, 1975. The Division Bench in paragraph ? of their judgment had pointed out that the expression "job work" in the said Notification means such items of work where the article intended to undergo manufacturing process is supplied to the job worker and that the article is re turned by the job worker to the supplier after the article has undergone the intended manufacturing process charging only for the job work done by him According to the learned Judges, it was obvious in the context of the excise law that unless a new article known to trade emerges after the manufacturing process is completed, excise cannot be levied at all. A job worker is exempted from payment of the excise duty when the article which undergoes manufacturing process is supplied by the customer and the only thing which a job worker has to do is to subject the article supplied by the customer to the intended manufacturing process. The Division Bench in Anup Engineering Co, v. Union of India (supra), had also pointed out that the Deputy Collector Central Excise, Bombay by a trade notice had clarified, inter-alia that the exemption under the aforesaid Notification No. 119/75 C.E. dated 30th April 1975 would be applicable irrespective of the trade nomenclature of the article at the time of the receipt and at the time of the despatch after subjecting it to a manufacturing process. I respectfully agree with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Anup Engineering Co. v. Union of India (supra), and the said decision is also in accord with the view taken by this Court in Madura Coats Ltd. v. The Collector, Central Excise (supra). I accordingly conclude that the petitioner company was entitled to exemption from payment of excise duty in respect of lead suboxide and lead monoxide processed by the petitioner from pure tead or lead ingots supplied by its customers. The respondents had acted illegally by levying excise duty in respect of the said products processed by the petitioner as job work.