Page 132 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

458 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
the power regulator in the State of Maharashtra having the authori-
ty to formulate the norms and guidelines regarding the electricity
distribution within the State, which are required to be complied
with by the entities seeking to use the distribution facility of
MSEDCL.
(ii) Further, the condition prescribed for the ‘job work’ procedure as
envisaged under Section 143(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, which
provides that a registered person is required to bring back the in-
puts from the premises of the Job worker after completion of job
work or otherwise, is also not fulfilled by the Appellant owing to
the following two reasons :
(a) the inputs proposed to be sent by the Principal i.e. JSL to the
Appellant i.e. JEL would get consumed to generate electricity,
thus, in that case, the Principal i.e. JSL would not be in posi-
tion to bring back the inputs that it proposes to send to JEL,
as the same would get transformed into completely new
commodity i.e. electricity;
(b) the presence of the above-mentioned power regulator i.e.
MSEDCL, which restricts the liberty and capability of M/s.
JSL, the principal, in bringing back the inputs from the prem-
ises of the Job worker i.e. the Appellant, as the Principal is
bound to follow the regulatory guidelines laid down by the
Power regulator i.e. MSEDCL, which is subject to, changes.
Thus, the Appellant has no other option than to depend on
the permissions granted by the regulator i.e. MSEDCL and
the guidelines issued in this regard. Thus, the return of the
inputs in the form of the electricity to the premises of the
Principal is not guaranteed in the current circumstances,
thereby, not satisfying the conditions of the job work proce-
dure provided under Section 143(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017.
(iii) It was, further, observed that since the Appellant, which claims it-
self to be the job worker in the proposed arrangement, will be add-
ing air and water on its own account, which are of the considerable
volume and cost, to the coal proposed to be supplied by JSL for the
generation of the electricity, the Appellant will not be construed as
job worker in light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the
case of the Prestige Engineering (India) v. Collector of C. Ex., Meerut
[1994 (73) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)], wherein the Apex Court held as under :
“Job work means goods produced out of materials supplied by cus-
tomer and where the job workers contribute mainly their labor and
skill though done with the help of their own tools, gadgets or ma-
chinery - But when the job worker contributes his own raw material
to the article supplied by the customers and manufactures different
goods it does not amount to job work however addition or applica-
tion of minor items by job worker would not detract it being a job
work - Like a tailor stitching a shirt or suit out of the cloth supplied
by his customer, may use his own buttons, thread and lining cloth
and such an activity would amount to job work.”
Since, in the instant case, the other inputs, e.g. air, water etc., pro-
cured by the Appellant, i.e. JEL, which are essentially required for
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  252