1987 (2) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... supplied is Lead ingots. The lower authorities have held that the benefit of Notification 119/75 is not available to the appellants because they manufacture a totally new article out of the goods supplied by the customers. 2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate appears on behalf of the appellants and submits that there is already substantial case law in support of the appellant's stand that emergence of a new product is no bar to availing of the benefit of Notification No. 119/75. In this connection, he has cited the following decisions: 1. 1983 E.L.T. 876 - Associated Pigments Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise & Other. 2. 1986 (24) E.L.T. 113 - Bombay Food Pvt. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. 3. 1978 E.L.T. 533 - Anup E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fit of Notification No. 119/75. However, the concensus of the decisions on the issue is that while each case has to be dealt with on facts and decided on its own merits, the claim to benefit of Notification No. 119/75 can legitimately be made only when the article entrusted by the customer, after the application of the manufacture process by the job worker, does not lose its essential identity entirely. This point is further elaborated in the Tribunal's decision in the case of Waldies Ltd. (supra) in which it has been held that what is intended is that job work should be small, to bring the manufacturing initially undertaken to a completion. It was held in this case that the conversion of lead into litharge cannot be considered to be a job ....