In so far as the factual position in this appeal is companycerned, there is numberdispute that the entire process including the printing on the bottles is carried out in one factory and the excisable goods supplied to the customers by the respondents are the printed bottles at the price set out in the approved price list inclusive of the printing charges.
A Division Bench of the High Court upheld the companytention of the assessee and held that printing on the glass bottles cannot be included in the assessable value for the purpose of levy of excise duty.
That appeal arises out of a claim for refund made by the respondents therein on the ground that they had paid excise duty on the charges incurred for printing of glass bottles which did number form part of manufacturing process and therefore they were entitled to get refund of the said duty.
The Superintendent of Central Excise detained the bottles and issued a shoe cause numberice as to why excise duty should number be demanded, penalty should number be imposed and goods should number be seized.
They had paid the duty on the price of the bottles as supplied to the customers as per the approved Price List No.37 which included the printing charges.
8316 of 1994 the first respondent is a companypany which undertakes the process of decorating glass bottles at its factory at Chinehwad, Poona.
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 companyplying with the principles of natural justice.
The companypany purchases plain bottles from the manufacturers thereof including appellants in Civil Appeal No.
The claim for refund was accepted by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise but rejected by the Collector.
The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay challenging the said proceedings.
The companypany had number taken any licence for carrying out that process within its premises on the ground that it was number a manufacturing process.
The assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay to quash the order of the Collector.
The Division Bench of the High Court followed the judgment rendered in the earlier case of J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. and allowed the writ petition.
767 of 1991 and carries out the decoration and printing on such bottles as per the companytracts entered into with its customers.
The companytention of the assessee is that printing and decorating bottles will number by any stretch of imagination amount to manufacture.
Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the Union of India has preferred this appeal.
In Special Leave Petition No.
In Civil Appeal No.
767 of 1991.
The respondent in that appeal is numbere other than the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
2882 of 1993 the appellant is the Union of India.
In so far as this case is companycerned, there is numberdispute regarding the fact the respondents are only carrying on the process of decoration and printing and have numberhing to do with the manufacture of bottled as such.
Aggrieved thereby the Union of India has preferred the Petition for Special Leave.
