Job worker exemption under Notification 175/86-C.E. upheld where the fabricator is treated as the manufacturer for excise purposes.

A job worker who fabricates goods from raw materials supplied by another unit is treated as the manufacturer for central excise purposes, so exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. cannot be denied merely because the buyer is not independently eligible, unless the notification itself so provides. The Tribunal applied that settled principle, noted that an earlier decision between the same parties had already allowed the same claim for the relevant period, and held that reference to Rule 57F(2) did not defeat the exemption. The appellants were therefore entitled to the notification benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. in respect of goods fabricated as job workers from raw materials supplied by another unit, and whether the appeals warranted the same result as the Tribunal's earlier decision between the same parties.

Analysis: The issue turned on the settled principle that a job worker receiving raw materials and job charges is the manufacturer for central excise purposes. On that basis, the benefit of an exemption notification available to the job worker cannot be denied merely because the buyer is not itself entitled to the notification, unless the notification itself so provides. The earlier Tribunal order between the same parties had already applied this principle and allowed the appeal, and the present matters involved the same controversy for the relevant period. The reference to Rule 57F(2) was not found sufficient to deny the exemption in these appeals.

Conclusion: The appellants were held entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., and the five appeals were allowed.

---