Page 217 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] DOMINO PRINTECH INDIA PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF C. EX., DELHI-III 103

of neutralisation by alkali and bleaching by activated earth and/or carbon.
According to the learned Counsel “manufacture” is complete as soon as by
the application of one or more processes, the raw material undergoes some
change. To say this is to equate “processing to manufacture” and for this
we can find no warrant in law. The word “manufacture” used as a verb is
generally understood to mean as “bringing into existence a new substance”
and does not mean merely “to produce some change in a substance,” how-
ever minor in consequence the change may be. This distinction is well
brought about in a passage thus quoted in Permanent Edition of Words and
Phrases, Vol. 26, from an American judgment. The passage runs thus :-
“Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufac-
ture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, la-
bour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there
must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge
having a distinctive name, character or use.”
21. We have seen that the appellant has procured the empty containers
and does not manufacture such containers. The appellant is only and simply
filled the empty containers with ink and no other activity undertaken as a result
of process of refilling no new article comes into existence. Prior to undertaking
such activity the product remained ink and even after undergoing the refilling
activity remains ink. We find that admitted position is that the items in question
do not form part of Third Schedule of the Central Excise Act in Section 2(f)(iii).
We observed that the Commissioner have given finding that the containers are
specialized containers which are specially designed for the purpose of a printer
and hence the process of filling and labelling amounts to manufacture. We find
that neither these containers nor the ink manufactured by the appellant, there-
fore, by merely undertaking the process of filling of ink/labelling of the contain-
ers which would enable the container to be used for printing.
22. We have seen that the Hon’ble Apex Court has examined the con-
cept of manufacture in the case of Servo-Medi Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein
the Apex Court observed as under :-
10. When a finished product cannot conveniently be used in the form in
which it happens to be, and it is required to be changed into various shapes
and sizes so that it can conveniently be used, no transformation takes place
if the character and the end use of the first product continue to be the same.
An illustration of this principle is brought out by the judgment in CCE, New
Delhi v. S.R. Tissues, 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.). On facts, in the said case,
jumbo rolls of tissue paper were cut into various shapes and sizes so that
they could be used as table napkins, facial tissues and toilet roils. This
Court held that there was no manufacture as the character and the end use
of the tissue paper in the jumbo roll and the tissue paper in the table nap-
kin, facial tissue and toilet roil remains the same.
23. We find that in the present case also filing in to containers enables
the impugned items to be used as printing ink. However there is no change in
the essential character or end use of printing ink. Thus, no transformation takes
place which would result to be referred as manufacturing activity.
24. Further in the case of S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. (supra) again the issue of
manufacture came before the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the said case, the Apex
Court has observed as under :

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  265