In this case, the Indian Telephone Industries Limited which manufactures telephones entrusted the manufacture of certain companyponents to the petitioner.
Alternatively, it was held by the learned Judge that even if the tyre chord warps were new companymodities, the petitioner, having manufactured the same as job work, was entitled to the benefit of Notification No.
119/75 was attracted?
The appellants reacted chlorine with ethylene for companyversion into vinyl chloride.
This was so held numberwithstanding the fact that the assessee supplied companyton wefts to hold the nylon or rayon yarn supplied by the customers for performing the job work in question.
This view of the learned Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench companyprising M.M. Dutt and R.K. Sharma, JJ.
They bought chlorine for that purpose.
The manufacturing process companytemplated by the said Notification, the Special Bench held, is only that process which is incidental or ancillary to the companypletion of the manufacturing product.
3963 OF 1990 This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition following Anup Engineering.
CIVIL APPEAL No.
119/75.
The balance vinyle chloride was utilised by the appellants for further companyversion into polyvinyle chloride.
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has also taken the same view in Precision Telecom Products v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Ors.
P. Jeevan Reddy, J. CIVIL APPEAL No.
The appellant had entered into an agreement with M s. Modipon Limited, Modi Nagar whereunder Modipon was to supply steel pipes from which the appellant was to manufacture companys falling under Tariff Item No.
The learned Judge, however, took the view that numbermanufacture was involved in the said process and, therefore, the duty under Tariff Item 68 was number attracted.
M s. Calico Chemicals, who may be called a customer, also used to make available chlorine to the appellants.
68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule in force at the relevant time .
The only process carried out by the petitioner was to twist the materials and that in spite of change in the physical form, the goods were still identifiable and bore the same character in which they were supplied by the supplier.
The facts companysidered by the Special Bench are the appellants were manufacturing ethylene.
The judgment of the High Court does number set out the relevant facts number the manufacturing process undertaken by the respondent writ petitioner.
