1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The respondent produced strawboard in its manufacturing plant at Kotri and having cleared it from there after payment of excise duty leviable thereon brought it to its premises at Karachi where certain processes of pasting and cutting by manual labour were carried out during Febraury 1973 to May 1973. It has been stated that the respondent allowed clearance of the goods from its Karachi premises on payment of duty again on the goods which had already suffered duty at time of clearance from its manufacturing plant at Kotri. The appellant recovered from the respondent illegally Rs, 39,750 which was paid under protest and the same was notified by letter dated 13-7-1979 to the Joint Secretary. The respondent by its letter dated 24-6-1974 claimed refund from the appellant. The appellant No,1 issued notice dated 24-8-1974 and by his order dated 30-9-1974 declined the refund on the ground that there was no exemption allowed to the respondent and that the process of pasting and cutting fell within the mischief of the definition of the term "manufacture" given in section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter called the Act. The respondent filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs which was dismissed and revision filed before appellant No,3 met the same fate. The respondent therefore filed Constitution Petition in the High Court of Sindh, which was allowed with the following observations: "From the above-cited cases, it is evident that the basic question in issue is, whether the process of pasting and cutting of the paper board is carried out with the object to complete the product or in other words, whether the case of the above process results into a finished product marketable under a separate trade name. If paper board remins paper board in spite of the fact that two thin paper boards are pasted with each other to make it thicker or it is cut to bring it to the required size, in our view, the same remains paper board and not a different item warranting the levy of excise duty second time."
2. The appellants filed petition for leave to appeal which was granted to consider inter alia the question whether the goods were put in a different manufacturing process is a question of fact, and since it has been decided by the Tribunal authorised by law in this behalf, interference by the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction was wholly unwarranted.
3. ' The learned counsel for the appellant in fact did not advert to this aspect of the case but contended that the straw board after production at Kotri is further put to process before selling it to the customers and therefore this process will be covered by the term 'manufacture' as defined in section 2(f) of the Act. Mr. Zahir Ahmed Khan learned Advocate for the respondent contended that the process carried out at Karachi does not make the goods complete and vendible nor does it change its character and it remains the same goods and as such it is not covered by the word 'manufacture'.
4. ' Both the learned counsel rely on interpretation of the term 'manufacture' as defined by section 2(1) of the Act which reads as follows:- "'Manufacture' includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufactured product and any process of remanufacture, remaking, reconditioning or repair and the process of packing or repacking such product, and"
5. This definition is inclusive in nature and means that in addition to the natural and literal meaning of 'manufacture' any process incidental or ancillary for completing a manufactured article by any process so as to make it a finished product in all respects shall fall within the four corners of the terms `manufacture'.
6. ' In Black's Law Dictionary the word 'manufacture' has been defined as follows:-- "The process or operation of making wares or any material produced by hand, by machinery or by any other agency; anything made from raw materials by the hand, by machinery or by art. The production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities, properties or combinations, whether by hand labour or machine."
7. ' In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary it means:- "The word 'manufacture' said Abbot, C.J. In R.V. Wheeler (2 B. & Ald. 349), "has been generally understood to denote, either a thing made which is useful for its own sake and vendible as such, as a medicine, a stove, a telescope, and many others; or to mean an engine or instrument, or some part of an engine or instrument, to be employed either in the making of some previously known article, or in some other useful purpose, as a stocking frame, or a steam engine for raising water from mines, or, it may perhaps extend also to a new process to be carried on by known implements or elements acting upon known substances, and ultimately producing some other known substance but producing it in a cheaper or more expeditious manner, or of a better or more useful kind."
8. In general and literal sense 'manufacture' means production, preparation or making any article or product of corporeal or substantial in nature manually or mechanically from material which after such production changes its shape, character, or nomenclature or transforms into a good complete for use or sale in the existing form or otherwise. However, the Act enlarges the scope of this word by including in its meaning any process which is incidentally or in an ancillary manner required for making the manufactured product complete and finished article including repairing, remaking, reconditioning, packing and repacking. This expression was considered in Superintendent of Central Excise, Lyallpur v. Ch. Faqir Muhammad PLD 1959 SC 103 in which the question before the Supreme Court was, whether calendering is a process ancillary to the completion of the manufacture J proauct. Taking note of the word `manufacture' their Lordships disagreed with the view of the High Court and it was observed:-- "We are unable to agree with the view of the learned Judges that unless the content of the article is changed it remains the same in spite of its being given a finish. It might have been so if without the finish the goods were not marketable, but uncalendered cloth is also sold in the market. The fact that its price is higher after it is calendered shows that the purchasing public regards calendered cloth as a different article having a positive and specific use in its new state."
9. ' In Pakistan and Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Muhammad Aqil, PLD 1960 SC 4 it was held that the processes of dyeing and glazing tanned leather of sheep skins are calculated to produce goods and were held liable to excise duty. It was also observed that "duty does not fall upon any process, but upon the goods produced".
10. ' In Messrs Satar Vacuum Bottle Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi and others PLD 1972 Karachi 210 the, petitioner claimed that the flasks were made by assembling together the excisable items viz. Tin, plastic and glass purchased in free made condition. It also turned out that glass flasks are subjected to a process of oxidisation by the petitioners which gives a highly polised surface and maintains the temperature. It was held that even assembly would amount to manufacture. It was observed that if even by application of physical labour or mechanical power, however simple it may be, an article is made of the material of goods the process will amount to manufacture. The learned Judges of the High Court have also taken note of Civil and Military Press Ltd. And 3 others v. Secretary, Finance and 3 others 1985 CLC 1021 where while holding that corrugated board did not fall within the category of paper and paper board observed that "the word manufacture means bringing into existence a vendible product knows to the market." However, as pointed out by learned Advocates for the parties this judgment has been set aside by the Supreme Court in Pakistan and 3 others v. Civil and Military Press Ltd. And others PLD 1991 SC 619. In this judgment it has been held that corrugated board is covered by the expression "Paper and Paper Board all Sorts" but the meaning of the word "manufacture" as enunciated by .The High Court does not seem to haw; been disturbed. The connotation of word 'manufacture' was considered in Colony Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd. v. Collector Central Excise and Land Customs PLD 1969 Lahore 228 where relying on PLD 1959 SC 103 it was held that it is comprehensive and wide enough to include all processes, principal or ancillary, which a finished product had to undergo before its completion.
11. The word 'manufacture' as defined is intended to enlarge its field of operation to such acts, processes, works and repair which may not generally be covered by it literally. By bringing any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product within the meaning of manufacture its scope and concept has been widely extended and by such legal fiction even a process which ordinarily may not amount to manufacture in its literal sense will be covered by it provided use of such process is necessary or subsidiary and ancillary for completing manufactured goods. Such process may be manual or mechanical intended to complete the manufactured goods. It is not necessary that by such process any new article may be produced.
12. The article may remain the same but the processing may make it a finished goods which may be different in quality or utility from the original one. Putting the present case to the test we find that the process carried out by the respondent in its premises at Karachi is only pasting straw boards on each other or cutting them to the required size. These processes do not change the nature of the goods nor they add completion to the manufactured goods which in quality and utility remains the same goods known as straw board. As admitted by Mr. Muzaffar Hassan, after the alleged treatment at Karachi the manufactured goods remains straw board without the least affecting quality or finishing of the manufactured goods. This fact supports that the process carried out by the respondent does not fall within the definition of the word 'manufacture'. The learned Judges of the High Court of Sindh have correctly analysed the alleged process which is neither incidental nor ancillary for completing the straw board.
13. ' We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.