G. Sankaran, Vice President

1. The captioned three appeals have been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Thane against the three Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals),. Bombay noted against each appeal.

2. The Assistant Collector by his Order No. V(14D)17- 129/PLVC/ 83/1305 dated 28-2-1984 held that Central Excise duty was payable by M/s. Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd. (the respondents before us) on formulated dyes and that value for the purpose of assessment of duty should be the value of formulated dyes in which state they were sold and not the value at the stage of wet cake. In appeal, this order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) by his order dated 7-2-85. Appeal No. 965/85-C is against this order.

3. By order No. V-140(18)81/84 dated 5-2-85 the Asstt. Collector held that the action of the excise officers of levying, assessing and collecting excise duty at the formulation stage was in order, as per the definition of "manufacture" in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises, and Salt Act (hereafter, the Act). Accordingly, he rejected the refund claim for Rs. 1,28,40,383.03 for the period from 1-4-83 to 31-3-84. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order by his order dated 16-5-85 with consequential relief to the respondent Appeal No. 2038/85-C is against this Order.

4. By Order No. V(14D)RC-64/82/1304 dated 1-3-84, the Assistant Collector rejected four claims dated 12-10-81, 30-6-80, 2-12-82 and 16-9-82 for refund of Rs. 58,26,470.21, Rs. 23,90,624.37, Rs. 33,41,009.54, and Rs. 69,19,511.76 respectively for reasons similar to those noted in para 3 above. This order was set aside- with consequential relief to the respondent by the Collector (Appeals). Appeal No. 2298/85-C is against this Order.

5. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of synthetic organic dyestuffs (S.O. Dyestuffs) falling under Item No. 14D of the First Schedule (GET, for short), to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 19M. They used to manufacture concentrates of disperse dyes which were further formulated to diluted disperse dyes and sold on payment of excise duty on the, basis of the wholesale price of such formulated, dyes. The price lists submitted by them on this basis were approved by the excise authorities from time to time. With effect from 1-4-81 and 1-4-83, the respondents filed revised price lists in respect of concentrates of disperse dyes contending that the manufacturing process of dyes was complete at the stage prior to formulation of the concentrates and that the addition of dispersing agents or diluents to produce formulated dyes was not an activity of manufacture, or production attracting excise duty which was payable only at the stage of concentrate's, namely, the wet cake stage. In the adjudication proceedings held by the Assistant Collector, the respondents relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Sandoz India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. - 1980 ELT 6% in support of their contention that manufacture of dyes was complete at the -wet cake stage, that the formulation of the wet cake into diluted disperse dyes was not a manufacturing, activity attracting excise duty and that the value for the purposes of assessment should b6 that at the wet cake stage. The Assistant Collector held that the judgment in the Sandoz case was not applicable to the instant case, that the formulation of the wet cake into disperse dyes amounted to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, and that the assessable value should be that of the formulated dyes. In this view of the matter, he rejected the prices claimed in the price lists effective from 1-4-81 and 1-4-83.

6. The above order was challenged by the respondents before the Collector (Appeals). It was contended inter, alia that the dyes in the wet cake form as well as the formulations would fall under the same Tariff Item No. 14D, that the liability to excise duty attached itself t