PRESTIGE ENGINEERING (INDIA) LTD. ETC. ETC. versus THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT, ETC. ETC.

PRESTIGE ENGINEERING (INDIA) LTD. ETC. ETC. versus THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT, ETC. ETC.

Job work exemption under Notification No. 119/75-C.E. is available only when the manufacturer undertakes processing mainly with material supplied by the customer, and only makes minor additions if any. Where the manufacturer contributes substantial material of their own, the activity is not job work and does not qualify for exemption; thus, the appellant's work did not qualify as job work under the Notification.

Parties
Appellant: Prestige Engineering; Respondent: Collector of Central Excise; Supplier: Modipon Limited; Advocate for Appellant in C.a. No. 3464/88: Ranjit Kumar; Advocate for Respondents in C.a. Nos. 19 20/80: P.H. Parekh; Advocate for Respondents in C.a. Nos. 1384 85/87: S.S. Javeli; Advocate for Union of India: Joseph Vellapalli; Advocate for Respondent in C.a. No. 3331/84: V.J. Francis
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 September 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Central Excise Customs and Gold (control) Appellate Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for main appellant; Some connected appeals dismissed, some allowed and remitted for further fact finding; No costs.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Notification, Job Work Exemption, Manufacture Definition
Taxation Central Excise Interpretation of Notification Job Work Exemption Manufacture Definition

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prestige Engineering

Appellant

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Modipon Limited

Supplier

Ranjit Kumar

Advocate for Appellant in C.a. No. 3464/88

P.H. Parekh

Advocate for Respondents in C.a. Nos. 19 20/80

S.S. Javeli

Advocate for Respondents in C.a. Nos. 1384 85/87

Joseph Vellapalli

Advocate for Union of India

V.J. Francis

Advocate for Respondent in C.a. No. 3331/84

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Central Excise Customs and Gold (control) Appellate Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of Notification No. 119/75-C.E.
  2. 2 Definition and scope of 'job work' under Central Excise laws
  3. 3 Whether manufacture process qualifies as job work for exemption

Ratio Decidendi

Job work exemption under Notification No. 119/75-C.E. is available only when the manufacturer undertakes processing mainly with material supplied by the customer, and only makes minor additions if any. Where the manufacturer contributes substantial material of their own, the activity is not job work and does not qualify for exemption; thus, the appellant's work did not qualify as job work under the Notification.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for main appellant; Some connected appeals dismissed, some allowed and remitted for further fact finding; No costs.

Orders

  • Main appeal dismissed, appellant not entitled to benefit of Notification No. 119/75-C.E.
  • Appeals in C.A. Nos. 1384-85/87 dismissed, respondent entitled to exemption.