ANUP ENGINEERING LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The same common questions of law and interpretation of one and the same notification issued by the Government of India on April 30 1975 arise for consideration in each of these four matters and hence we will dispose of these four matters by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner in each of these four matters is what is known in the trade as a job manufacturer. The petitioner concerned has a factory of his own and in this factory he carries out processes of manufacture of articles and materials brought by his or its customers from outside. After the manufacturing process is over as intended between the parties the final product is returned to the customer and the petitioner concerned the job worker charges for the job work that is for the labour and other incidental charges which have been agreed upon between the customer and the job worker. The articles which are brought to the job worker for being subjected to the process of manufacture do not belong to the job worker. In order to illustrate what is being done by each of the four petitioners we will refer to the facts appearing in Special Civil Application No. 1184 of 1977. In paragraph 7 of the petition it has been specifically stated that the customer supplies to the petitioner company materials such as tin plates sheets tubes etc. for carrying out job work and making equipments and components. These materials which are supplied to the petitioner company by the customers are themselves excisable goods. The plates and articles which are supplied by the customers are all duty paid goods and they are goods which are manuactured from raw materials like iron ore etc. in lump form. These goods which are supplied by the customers to the petitioner are themselves not raw materials but are articles. According to the petitioner when the petitioner carried out job work on these articles the job work so carried out by the petitioner company would fall squarely within the exemption notification No. 119 of 1975 and the petitioner would be liable to pay excise duty only on the job work charges recovered from the customers exclusive of the value of the articles supplied by the customers to the petitioner company. The excise authorities who are respondents in each of these petitions have sought to levy excise duty at the rate of one per cent ad valorem under Entry 68 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises And Salt Act 1944 with effect from 1-4-75 on all articles on which job work has been carried out on the total value that is on the value including the value of the materials supplied by the customers to each of these job workers. Prior to 1st March 1975 there was no item like Tarrif Entry No. 68 but on and from 1st March 1975 Tarrif Item No. 68 was added to the First Schedule to the Central Excises And Salt Act 1944 Under that Entry all other goods not elsewhere specified in the Schedule manufactured in a factory became liable to pay excise duty at the rate of one per cent ad valorem. The exemptions set out Article 68 are not necessary to be considered in the course of this judgment. In the affidavit in reply in each of these matters the stand taken up by the excise authorities is practically similar. The stand is as shown in the affidavit in reply for example in Special Civil Application No. 1184 of 1977 is as shown in paragraph 4 that the petitioner manufactures machineries machine parts and components which are entirely different articles from the raw material said to have been supplied by the customer. Such material completely loses its original identity and is not returned to the customer but altogether a new article as per specifications and designs is brought into existence and given to the customer. Again in paragraph 10 of the affidavit in reply in reply to paragraph 7 of the petition it has been stated that the petitioner is deliberately keeping back the details and description of the equipments and components manufactured by it on so called job work. According to the affidavit in reply the description would make it abundantly clear that these articles are substantially and materially new articles and it cannot be said that the articles returned to the petitioner are same or similar to the only supplied by the customer. Since the raw materials namely steel plates sheets tubes pipes etc. received from the customer were not returned to the customer but an entirely different article is prepared and given to the customer after sophisticated manufacturing process which is absolutely a new article having different description in trade and popular parlance the material received from the customer and the article returned to him are entirely different in character and use and it cannot be said that the Article supplied by the customer is returned to the customer and hence the so called job work done by the petitioner is not a job work as defined in the Notification and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to claim the exemption under the Notification.

(3.) Sec. 37 of the Central Excises And Salt Act 1944 confers power on the Central Government to make rules to carry into effect the purposes of the Act. According to sub-sec. (2) in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers such rules may under clause (xvii) exempt any goods from the whole or any part of the duty imposed by the Act.