TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of manufacturing paper-covered copper strips for principal manufacturers like M/s. BHEL during the period of dispute. The principal manufacturers supplied copper bars/rods/strips to the respondent and the latter manufactured paper-covered copper strips out of such raw materials and paper procured by themselves. The paper was imported on payment of duties of customs including CVD and, at the time of using it in job work, reversed MODVAT credit of CVD. The job-worked goods were supplied without payment of duty, to the principal manufacturers, who, after further processes on such goods, cleared the product on payment of duty. In this scheme, the respondent was availing the benefit of Notification 214/86 ibid. The notification entitled a job w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent (assessee). The learned SDR has reiterated the grounds of this appeal. The case of the Revenue is that the processes undertaken by the respondent on the raw materials supplied by the principal manufacturers exceeded the scope of "job work" defined under the Explanation to the notification. According to the appellant, 'job work' envisaged under the notification should comprise only minor processes not amounting to manufacture. In support of this plea, the learned SDR has relied on the Hon'ble High Court's decision in Madura Coats Ltd. v. CCE, West Bengal - 1980 (6) E.L.T. 582 (Cal.) as also on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Meeru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notification, the expression "job work" means processing of working upon of raw materials or semi-finished goods supplied to the job worker, so as to complete a part or whole of the process resulting in the manufacture or finishing of an article or any operation which is essential for the aforesaid process." It is pertinent to note that, in the very opening paragraph of the notification, it was mentioned thus ".....the Central Government hereby exempts goods specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed (hereinafter referred to as the said goods) manufactured in a factory as a job work ....." The Explanation to the notification, in our view, makes the position more explicit. As per the Explanation, a job worker could process or work....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he principal manufacturers. In other words, the fact mentioned by the learned SDR would not detract from the nature of 'job work' involved in the process undertaken by the respondent. The learned counsel has also relied on certain decisions of this Tribunal with regard to the definition of "job work" given in the Explanation to Notification 214/86-C.E., but we have not found these decisions to be apposite to the dispute raised before us. In our considered view, therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held the benefit of Notification 214/86 to be admissible to the respondent, particularly where there was no dispute regarding fulfilment of the conditions attached thereto. The lower appellate authority is perfectly right in havin....