Job work exemption for printing services upheld where customer supplied newsprint and retained editing functions.

Printing carried out for a customer was treated as job work under Notification No. 119/75-C.E. because the notification focused on work done for hire, not on a narrow view confined to processes incidental or ancillary to manufacture. The appellants received newsprint from the customer, while editing and other functions remained with the customer, and they provided only printing services for agreed charges. On those facts, the activity fell within the notification, and exemption was available. The refund claim therefore could not be rejected on the ground that the printing activity was outside the scope of the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the printing activity undertaken by the appellants amounted to job work within the meaning of Notification No. 119/75-C.E. dated 30.04.1975, so as to entitle them to exemption and refund of excise duty.

Analysis: The notification was applied in the light of the principle that its emphasis is on work done for hire as job work, not on a narrow reading limited only to processes incidental or ancillary to completion of the manufactured product. The appellants received newsprint from the customer, the editing and other functions remained with the customer, and the appellants rendered only the printing service for agreed charges. On these facts, the work was in the nature of job work contemplated by the notification.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the benefit of the notification and the refund claim could not be denied on the ground that the activity was outside the notification.

---