TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (7) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication 119/75-CE, dated 30-4-1975. In respect of one of the customers namely M/s J.K. Batteries, the respondents used cadmium in the manufacture of zinc calots. The calots contained 99.6% of zinc, 0.35% of lead and 0.05% of cadmium. The zinc and lead were supplied by M/s J.K. Batteries. The period in issue is from 26-12-1975 to 25-12-1976. The respondents paid duty under Notification 120/75-CE on the invoice value which took into a/c the cost of cadmium besides the conversion charges. A show cause notice was issued on 27-4-1979 alleging that the product cleared was different from the goods given for job work and that the respondent have suppressed the materials. In their reply, the respondents urged that they undertook the work purely as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified. 6.  Sh. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Ld. counsel for the appellants urged that the respondents received raw-materials namely, zinc and lead from their customers M/s J.K. Batteries and that they added cadmium 0.05% for the purpose of manufacturing zinc calots. He stated that the identity of the article supplied by the customers did not undergo any change. The intended process of manufacture was to make an alloy of zinc cadmium and lead as per the customer's specification and convert them to calots. The respondents have opted for payment of duty on the invoice value under Notification 120/75-CE which had included the cost of cadmium. He further urged that, in any event, the show cause notice was issued on 27-4-1979 raising a demand for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facture of zinc sheets from which the calots were punched out. The Asstt. Collector has stated that there'was no connection between the raw material supplied for the job and the processed articles. The Tribunal in 1985 ECR 2188 [Bombay Foods (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bombay] had an occasion to consider the identical issue. After referring to number of judgments on the issue, the Tribunal referred to Anup Engg. [1978 (2) E.L.T. J533] wherein it is stated that the Notification itself contemplated "manufacturing process" and observing that the manufacture does result in some change in the material; otherwise, it would not be manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act and held, that the view of the excise authority to th....