ORDER
I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the activity of the respondents namely receiving M.S. Rolls from their clients, rubber coating and returning them to the clients would amount to job work. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector’s Order and held that the activity amounts to manufacture. Hence this appeal.
2. We heard Shri Chakraborti, the Ld. JDR who submitted that the respondents in coating the M.S. Rolls with rubber manufacture a different commodity. He submitted that the activity amounts to manufacture and is not merely job work.
3. The Ld. Consultant for the respondents submitted that a perusal of the Notification No. 119/75 shows that the case is fully covered by the explanation to the notification which runs as follows :-
‘Explanation – For the purpose of this notification, the expression ‘Job work’ shall mean such item of work where an article intended to undergo manufacturing process is supplied to a job worker and that article is returned by the job worker to the supplier, after the article has undergone the intended manufacturing process, on charging only for the job work done by him.’
4. We have considered the arguments. The basic point in this matter is that M.S. Rollers are received by the respondents and are returned to the customers after rubber coating. The grounds of appeal and the arguments of the Ld. JDR do not contradict this position. The existence of manufacture or a process incidental or ancillary to it does not disqualify the goods for the application of the notification. In the circumstances, we hold that M.S. Rollers having been received and having been returned after rubber coating, the activity is covered by the definition of job work as given in the explanation to the notification (Supra). In this view, we find no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order.
5. We dismiss this appeal.