2007 (3) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the manufacture of the above product, to the appellants and that the latter undertook the manufacture by using certain materials of theirs such as grinding wheels, oxygen and acetylene gases, bolts and nuts, paints etc. The product so manufactured by the job worker was cleared to the principal manufacturers under Notification No. 214/86 ibid. The lower authorities took the view that materials not supplied by the principal manufacturer were used by the job worker in the manufacture of air-heater block assembly and, therefore, the benefit of the Notification would not be available to the product. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Tribunal's decision in Desh Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, 2000 (122) E.L.T. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal which was subsequently affirmed by the Apex Court. It is pointed out that the Tribunal's decision in Desh Rolling Mills (supra) was affirmed in Kartar Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, 2006 (197) E.L.T. 151 (S.C.). In his rejoinder, learned Consultant submits that the issue settled by the Tribunal and the Apex Court in the case of Desh Rolling Mills (supra) was different from the issue presently arising for consideration in the present case. It is submitted that the question before the Apex Court was whether there was evidence on record to show that the principal manufacturer who had engaged the appellants as job workers had supplied the raw materials required for the work under Notification No. 214/86 ibid. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The question to be decided upon is whether these materials used by the job worker from their own source would hit their claim of exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. in respect of the product manufactured by them and supplied to the principal ' manufacturer. The remand order (Order No. 92/93 in Appeal No. E/31/93/MAS) took the view that the definition of 'job work' given in the Explanation to the Notification did not preclude use of such is materials by the job worker for the completion of the job work. The remand order only required the original authority to ascertain the nature of the material that was used by the job worker from his own source and then to find out whether such material imparted essential character to the final ....