Case-1-Prestige Engineering(India) Ltd vs C.C.E on 1 September, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (6) 465, JT 1994 (5) 514 (Pre-GST Regime)
“All that Modipon does is to supply steel pipes. The appellant purchases guide rings and strengthening rings from the market. It fits these rings into those steel pipes by itself or gets them fitted in another unit. Thereafter, adopters are fitted on the sides of the cops and then the plastic sleeves are fitted on the cylinders of the cops. This is not a case where the rings and the adopters and sleeves are supplied by Modipon. It is not suggested that the value of rings, adopters and sleeves is very small vis-a-vis the value of steel pipes. The additions made by the appellant are not minor additions; they are of a substantial nature and of considerable value. Except the pipes, all other items which go into the manufacture of cops are either purchased or procured by the appellant itself and it manufactures the cops out of them. The work done by him cannot be characterised as a job work. If all the requisite rings, adopters and sleeves had also been supplied by Modipon, it could probably have been said that the appellant’s work is in the nature of job work.”
It was further held that
“We must hasten to add that addition or application of minor items by the job worker would not detract from the nature and character of his work. For example, a tailor entrusted with a cloth piece and asked to stitch a shirt, a pant or a suit piece may add his own thread, buttons and lining cloth. Similarly, a factory may be supplied the shoe uppers, soles etc. by the customer and the factory applies its own thread or bonding material and manufactures shoes there from and supplies them back to the customer, charging only for its work; the nature of its work does not cease to be job work. Indeed, this aspect has been stressed in all the decisions of High Courts referred to hereinbefore.”
Case-2- S.B. Reshellers (P.) Ltd  107 taxmann.com 235 (AAR – MAHARASHTRA)
In this case we find that applicants are receiving old roller, bare shaft, beams from the customer of the applicant under the cover of Rule 55 Challans. The applicant are then fitting the shell manufactured out of their own raw material on the said shaft and then machining the same and further fitting the required accessory thereon and thus bringing into existence a usable sugar mill roller or new sugar mill roller which is no doubt a different commercial commodity as compared to the input involved.
AAR then relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Prestige Engineering(India) Ltd vs C.C.E on 1 September, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (6) 465, JT 1994 (5) 514 and held that
From the observations made by the Court we find that additional application of minor items is permissible in job work. Therefore we have to find in the present case the nature of additions made by the applicant. Applicant has categorically stated in the statement containing applicant’s interpretation of law that the activity is clearly a activity of manufacturing a new commodity by using one’s own raw material and skill and labour as well as the material supplied by the customer and the value of the material used/skill and labour applied by them and the value of the shaft/beam supplied by the customer is almost equal.
Case-3-Circular No. 38/12/2018 Dated 26-3-2018 As Amended By Circular No. 88/07/2019-GST
Scope/ambit of job work: Doubts have been raised on the scope of job work and whether any inputs, other than the goods provided by the principal, can be used by the job worker for providing the services of job work. It may be noted that the definition of job work, as contained in clause (68) of section 2 of the CGST Act, entails that the job work is a treatment or process undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person. Thus, the job worker is expected to work on the goods sent by the principal and whether the activity is covered within the scope of job work or not would have to be determined on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. Further, it is clarified that the job worker, in addition to the goods received from the principal, can use his own goods for providing the services of job work.
Case-4- Industrial Engineering Corporation  110 taxmann.com 497 (AAR – KERALA)
Query before AAR- In case consumables like paints, primers and consumable spares like locking ring are arranged by the job work unit, is there any change on the rate of tax under GST law on such job works provided by the job work unit?
(in this case, the consumables which are estimated at less than 9% of the total cost of raw materials are arranged by the job work unit and the said 9% of the estimated cost of consumables is going to be added to the job works charges).
Held- The job worker, in addition to the goods received from the principal, can use his own goods for providing the services of job work.
Case-5-Sanghi Brothers (Indore) (P.) Ltd.  107 taxmann.com 10 (AAR – MADHYA PRADESH).
As per the ratio of the judgment held in case of Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. CCE Collector of 1994 taxmann.com 232 (SC) addition or application of items by job worker would not detract from the nature and character of his work. Here it would be worthwhile to explain process of body building, being undertaken by the body builders.
6.3 Process of Body Building and mounting the same on chassis is as under:—
For fabrication of bus body, the builder first make the pipe structure and mount the same on the chassis. Outer panelling is done with GP sheets and interior panelling with colour coated G.P. Sheets. Flooring with chequered plywood. After primer painting the final coat of paint is applied. In this case body is not made separately but is fabricated on chassis itself. Body requirement differ from party to party.
It can not be treated as process of manufacturing merely because job worker is using its own inputs.
GST Law does not distinguish between raw materials, finished goods and semi finished goods. It talks about “input” and and capital goods. Even semi-finished goods or intermediates are and in turn input by the principal or job worker.
Therefore, merely because job worker is using its own input it is not job work. This is not according to the provisions of GST Law.
From the above process one can reach to the conclusion that Fabrication and other work is done on chassis itself. It is not the case that any readymade body is fitted on chassis given by the owner.
The ownership of chassis always remains with the applicant company who has given chassis for building and mounting of body on job work. Because it fulfils the main important condition of the definition of job work i.e. process undertaken on goods belonging to another registered persons . The whole process of body building and mounting is performed on the goods (Chassis) belonging to the applicant therefore it is purely job work. Once it is established that it is a job work then it is supply of service. Even if it is composite supply of goods and services. The predominant intention of the principal is to get services. Utilizing and consuming tengible and non-tengible goods is incidental to main/principal supply and therefore as per the provision of Sec. 8(a) in case of composite supply tax is being levied at the rate applicable to principal supply . In this case the principal supply is supply of service. Thus, it should be classified as services and tax is @ 18% under CGST Act.
As per the ratio of the judgment held in case of Prestige Engg. (India) Ltd. v. CCE 1994 taxmann.com 232 (SC), addition of application of items by job worker would not detract from the nature and character of his work.
10. GST law does not distinguish between raw material, finished goods and semi-finished goods. It talks about input and Capital goods. Even, semi-finished goods or intermediates are goods and in turn ‘Input’ by the principal or the job worker.
11. So, the argument of the applicant that they use their own material, hence, they should not be treated as job worker is not tenable under the provision of law.
It was held by AAR that
The Activity of building and mounting of the body on the chassis provided by the principal under FOC challan will result in supply of services under HSN 9988 and hence, should be taxed @ 18% GST.
(Similar Ratio laid down in Automobile Corporation of Goa Ltd.  98 taxmann.com 317 (AAR – GOA), Rohan Coach Builders,  107 taxmann.com 4 (AAR – MADHYA PRADESH))
Case-6- Paras Motor Industries (AAR – MADHYA PRADESH)  95 taxmann.com 218 (AAR – HARYANA) (Contrary to Rulings in Case-5)
In the instant case, it is only the chassis which is supplied by the customers of the applicant and in fact no treatment or process is undertaken by the applicant on the chassis itself, except fitment/mounting of bus body on the same. At the same time, bus body building involves use of raw materials/inputs etc., for manufacture/fabrication of bus body and the cost of these inputs, etc., do form the part of value which is being charged by the applicant from its customers.
Thus, it emerges that the customer is providing only chassis. All inputs/materials required for fabrication of bus body, has to be used by the applicant from its own account. Under such situation it is the bus-body which is being fabricated and also being mounted on the chassis provided by the customer. Therefore, it is not merely job-work. Rather it is supply of bus body and an activity of fitting/mounting of bus body on chassis is an ancillary activity to the principal activity of supply of bus-body. Hence, in terms of the clarification issued by the CBEC vide circular No. 34/8/2018-GST, dated 3-3-2018, the impugned activity is a composite supply, with principal supply being supply of bus-body.
Thus, the activity of fabrication and fitting and mounting of bus bodies on the chassis supplied by the other party is a composite supply with supply of goods, i.e., bus-bodies, being principal supply and same is covered under HSN code 8707.
Case-7-AAAR Maharashtra in case of JSW Energy Ltd. (GST AAAR Maharashtra) Appeal Number: Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/01A/2019-20 Date of Judgement/Order: 13/01/2020
AAAR Maharashtra revised their earlier judgement dated 2nd July 2018 on account of direction by the Bombay High Court but again referred to the concept of pre-dominance of material in case of Job Work
In this regard, the Appellant has furnished the certificate of the Cost Accountant pertaining to F.Y. 2017-18, wherein it has been testified that coal and other inputs constitutes a major cost i.e. more than 95% of the total cost of materials that are required for generation of power, whereas the cost towards water and air does not exceed 0.5% of the cost of inputs. Referring to this certificate issued by the Cost Accountant, the Appellant have further contended that coal constitutes the major cost for manufacture of power, whereas air and water constitute a very negligible cost. Accordingly, as per the principle laid down in the case of Prestige Engineering (India) Limited (supra) additions of minor materials by the Job Worker (such as air and water) would not alter the nature and character of the underlying transaction. It would still be considered as a job work transaction.
67. Now, in view of the above submissions and the certificates issued by the Cost Accountant, it is opined that the Appellant is squarely satisfying the stipulations laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. (supra). Hence, we are inclined to repeal our earlier observations in this regard. Furthermore, it is reasonably concluded that addition of the air and water by the Appellant to the coal proposed to be supplied by JSL will not detract the proposed transaction from being qualified as Job work.