Full Judgment
2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents and the registry informed that the notice issued to them for the date of hearing has been received back undelivered from the postal authorities. We find that the respondents, M/s. Glass Graphics (India) (P) Ltd. have filed the cross objections in the matter. We, therefore, heard Shri R.D. Negi, ld. S.D.R., and perused the records.
Shri Negi, on behalf of the revenue, submitted that the processes undertaken by the respondents amount to manufacture as they bring the changes in the nature and character of the product. According to him, after these processes are carried out, the product acquires a different character and end-use.
3. We have considered the submissions of the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the respondents. We find that the Collector (Appeals) has given clear findings in the impugned order that the respondents are purchasing duty-paid mirrors and after carrying out the impugned processes, mirror remains mirror and is not known by any different name. The use of the mirror also remains the same. In respect of glasses, the Collector (Appeals) has held that after the impugned processes, the glass becomes different as it is known as glass worked and falls under a different heading no. 70.03. He has, however, observed that if duty paid worked glass is brought into the factory and if any of the processes is being carried out, the duty will not be chargeable again as the product will remain the same. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals).
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many cases starting from Delhi Cloth & General Mills reported in 1977 (1) E.L.T. Q 199) that manufacture takes place only when a product known by the distinct name, use and character comes into existence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 has held that test whether a process amounts to manufacture is whether the product would serve any purpose but for the process. The Court held that for charging the duty, different commercial commodity should come into existence as a result of process and the identity of the original commodity should cease to exist. The second test laid down by the Supreme Court is whether the commodity, which was already in existence, will serve the purpose but for the said process. After laying down these two tests, the Supreme Court held that the printing done on glass bottles will not amount to manufacture. The similar is the situation in the present matter as the mirror and the glass remain the same and no new commodity comes into existence and these can be used without these processes also. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court's decisions, we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Cross Objections filed by the respondents are also disposed of accordingly.