https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44669 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. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Apr 2020 15:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44669 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44669