Job work under Notification No. 119/75 includes rubber coating supplied rollers and returning the same goods after processing.

Receiving M.S. rollers, rubber coating them, and returning the same rollers to clients was treated as job work under Notification No. 119/75. The notification's explanation covered work done on an article supplied for the intended manufacturing process and returned to the supplier, with charges confined to the job work performed. The fact that the processing involved manufacture, or a process incidental or ancillary to manufacture, did not by itself take the activity outside the notification where the essential features of receipt, processing, and return of the same goods were present. The activity therefore fell within the notified definition of job work.

---

---

Issues: Whether the activity of receiving M.S. rollers, rubber coating them, and returning them to the clients amounted to job work covered by Notification No. 119/75.

Analysis: The respondents received the rollers from their clients and returned them after rubber coating. The notification's explanation treated job work as work done on an article supplied for undergoing the intended manufacturing process and returned to the supplier on charging only for the job work done. The presence of manufacture, or a process incidental or ancillary to it, did not by itself exclude the activity from the notification where the essential features of receipt and return of the same goods after processing were present.

Conclusion: The activity fell within the definition of job work under the notification and the appeal failed.

---