1985 (1) TMI 69 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the conversion of chlorine into vinyl chloride constitutes job work under Notification No. 119/75-C.E.
2. Whether the excise duty should be calculated on the value of vinyl chloride or only on the conversion charges.
3. Interpretation and applicability of Notification No. 119/75-C.E.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the conversion of chlorine into vinyl chloride constitutes job work under Notification No. 119/75-C.E.

The appellants, M/s. National Organic Chemical Industries Limited, received chlorine from M/s. Calico Chemicals for conversion into vinyl chloride by reacting it with their own ethylene. The appellants claimed that this conversion was job work and sought the benefit under Notification No. 119/75-C.E., which allows duty assessment based only on conversion charges. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector of Central Excise rejected this claim, stating that the process resulted in a new product, vinyl chloride, which could not be considered job work under the notification. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the facts, concluded that the work did not qualify as job work because the process involved substantial use of the appellants' ethylene, which was integral to the manufacture of vinyl chloride. Therefore, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 119/75-C.E.

Issue 2: Whether the excise duty should be calculated on the value of vinyl chloride or only on the conversion charges.

The appellants argued that excise duty should be calculated only on the conversion charges, as per Notification No. 119/75-C.E. However, the Tribunal held that since the conversion process involved substantial use of the appellants' ethylene, the work could not be classified as job work. Consequently, the excise duty was to be calculated on the value of the vinyl chloride produced, not just on the conversion charges.

Issue 3: Interpretation and applicability of Notification No. 119/75-C.E.

The Tribunal analyzed various judicial pronouncements, including decisions from the Gujarat, Calcutta, and Madras High Courts, as well as previous Tribunal decisions, to interpret Notification No. 119/75-C.E. The Tribunal concluded that the notification applies only when the job worker returns the same article after a manufacturing process that is incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product. In the present case, the conversion of chlorine into vinyl chloride involved a primary manufacturing process, resulting in a new product with distinct properties. Therefore, the appellants' work did not qualify for the notification's benefits. The Tribunal also noted that in cases where the contract involves both labor and sale of substantial materials by the job worker, it does not constitute job work under the notification.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 119/75-C.E. and that excise duty should be calculated on the value of the vinyl chloride produced. The appeal was dismissed, and the interpretation of the notification was aligned with the decisions of the Madras and Gujarat High Courts, subject to specific qualifications.