- (1.) When this appeal was called on for hearing we heard learned counsel on the questions at issue as to who in the instant case can be said to be the manufacturer and what is the impact of the change in the definition of manufacturer brought about after the amendment in 1986. The Constitution bench in Ujagar Prints (II) v. Union of India while considering the question of assessable value of processing Grey fabric when the processing is done through job work observed "That the value should be the selling price at which the owner who entrusts the fabric to the processor for processing ultimately sells it for the first time in the market and not merely the job work or processing charges received by the processor. "the question in the instant case would be to determine the manufacturer liable to pay the duty having regard to the nature and extent of job work undertaken in the manufacture of footwear. Since after the decision rendered by the tribunal much water has flown on account of the judgments rendered by this court, we deem it appropriate that the matter should be examined afresh in the light of evidence and the decisions rendered by this court since the tribunal disposed of the matter. We also realise that it may be necessary for the tribunal to call for additional evidence and that was also the suggestion of the learned counsel for the parties. We think that instead of sending the matter down to the Assistant Commissioner it would be more appropriate that the parties may tender evidence, if so desired, before the tribunal and if the tribunal considers it necessary to call for evidence, it may do so.
(2.) The second contention which was mentioned by the learned counsel for the Revenue was based on the decision of this court recorded in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. wherein this court in paragraph 18 referred to the definition of manufacturer. The counsel submitted that the inclusive clause in the definition would have a bearing on the question as to who can be said to be the manufacturer and this aspect too would have to be gone into by the tribunal.
(3.) In view of the above, both the learned counsel agree that the impugned judgment may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to thetribunal for disposal in accordance with law, in particular, as developed from the decision in Ujagar Prints' and Delhi Cloth Mills' referred to hereinbefore. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly. Having regard to the fact that this is an old matter, the tribunal may consider giving it priority for disposal. There will, however, be no order as to costs.;