Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Ex. on 30 March, 1995
6. We find that the case of the appellants is on stronger grounds. The declared inputs were glass bottles. Whether plain or printed they are only glass bottles. Printing the bottles with the name of the manufacturer and of the product, which is a marketing necessity does not constitute a manufacturing process converting the bottles into another distinct product. The lacquered sheets - tin sheets difference and the problem of the declared input being different from the material covered in the duty paying document that was there in the Madras Fabricators case is not before us now in the present case. As stated above, the declaration tinder Rule 57G covered glass bottles which is what they received after printing of the names. The adverse decision in question had been taken by the lower authorities on two grounds namely (1) non-endorsement of the Gate Passes or non-production of subsidiary Gate Passes (2) the supply of the goods not in the original packing of the manufacturers of the bottles. As regards the first deficiency, the appellants have enclosed a photocopy of the Gate Pass of J.G. Glass endorsed in favour of the appellants by them. This is found to cover 25000 bottles involving duty of Rs. 9,400/-. The total quantity and duty involved in the matter is more. The required Gate Passes have to be looked into for which remand of the case to the Assistant Collector as suggested by Shri Mehta, learned counsel, would fill the bill. We are inclined to accept the plea. But before ordering accordingly, we would like to observe that the matter is not really a question of endorsed Gate Pass. That would be in order where the goods are cleared from a factory on a Gate Pass to a buyer who then sell, the same to a manufacturer availing Modvat credit and endorses the Gate Pass in favour of the latter or issues a subsidiary Gate Pass attested by jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise. Here, however, it is not a case of sale of the bottles received from the manufacturer as such, the supply is of the bottles after printing the required particulars thereon. This necessitated unpacking the bottles and repacking after that work is over. This is a case of job work done on behalf of the appellants by the printer and the required procedure under the relevant provisions of Rule 57F should have been followed by the appellants and the job worker which has not been. But the appellants have not been proceeded against on that ground. We are inclined to condone the lapse in question. While ordering so we remand the matter to the Assistant Collector for de novo examination with reference to the evidence put up by the appellants to correlate the printed bottles received by them with the duty paying documents issued by the manufacturers of the bottles and the endorsements and certificate, if any, issued by the job worker. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.