https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41779 Notification No. 119 of 1975 was treated as applying to job work even where the finished product differed from the materials initially supplied, because the decisive factor was the nature of the work performed for the principal. Notification No. 118 of 1975 was construed to exempt goods intended for use in the factory of the same manufacturer, and the term "use" was read broadly to include use as inputs, machinery parts, spares, or equipment without requiring consumption or loss of utility. Where multiple articles were covered by a classification list, each article required separate consideration. The assessment approval was interfered with to the extent it rejected the claimed excise exemptions. en-us Tue, 10 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:30:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41779 Notification No. 119 of 1975 was treated as applying to job work even where the finished product differed from the materials initially supplied, because the decisive factor was the nature of the work performed for the principal. Notification No. 118 of 1975 was construed to exempt goods intended for use in the factory of the same manufacturer, and the term "use" was read broadly to include use as inputs, machinery parts, spares, or equipment without requiring consumption or loss of utility. Where multiple articles were covered by a classification list, each article required separate consideration. The assessment approval was interfered with to the extent it rejected the claimed excise exemptions. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41779