Srinivasan, J. - (1.) The common question which arises for decision in these two appeals and Special Leave Petition is whether printing on glass bottles amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act 1944.
(2.) It is convenient to set out the facts in each case separately before considering the aforesaid question.
(3.) The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 767 of 1991 have a factory for manufacturing glass and glasswares falling under T.I. 23 of the Central Excise Tariff. Till 1983 they were manufacturing and supplying plain glass bottles to customers. In 1983 they filed an application before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Saharanpur enclosing a revised layout of the factory in substitution of the existing plan. Under the revised plan, the premises in which the manufacturing operation of glass and glassware was undertaken was segregated from the premises in which the machinery for printing of glass bottles with ceramic colour was to be installed for carrying on the printing operation. The Superintendent, (Central Excise) approved of the revised plan. The appellants commenced the process of printing of bottles in the separate demarcated Unit for which no Excise License was taken. The said demarcated unit is situated within a shed enclosed by walls separate from the main factory which is licenced for manufacturing glass and glassware. The Range Superintendent of Central Excise issued a directive vide letter dated 29-6-1983 that the appellants shall not remove any printed bottles without payment of Central Excise duty on the enhanced value after including the expenditure incurred on printing/decorating. That was challenged by appellants on appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who set aside the directive and directed the Assistant Collector to pass a speaking order after complying with the principles of natural justice. After a show cause notice and a reply thereto, the Assistant Collector passed an order on 23-9-1983 that assessable value of glass bottles should include the cost of decorating the same with ceramic colours. On appeal the Collector confirmed the same by his order dated 3-3-1984. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants by its order dated 26-10-1990. It is that order which is under challenge in this appeal.;