Manufacture of biris includes labelling and packing, so pre-rolled goods were not exempt from cess in this analysis.

For biris, manufacture was treated as incomplete until labelling and packing were done, because those steps were incidental and ancillary to completion of the finished product under the inclusive definition of manufacture in Section 2(f)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Biris rolled before 1-1-1982 but labelled and packed afterwards were therefore not regarded as already manufactured goods exempt from cess under the Biri Workers' Welfare Cess Act. The earlier High Court ruling cited by the assessees was distinguished as dealing with licence and movement of semi-finished rolled biris, not duty liability on the same facts. The refund claim accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether biris that were rolled before 1-1-1982 but labelled and packed thereafter were already manufactured so as to escape cess under the Biri Workers' Welfare Cess Act.

Analysis: The relevant test was whether manufacture was complete only on rolling, or whether labelling and packing were incidental or ancillary processes necessary for completion of the manufactured product. The inclusive definition of manufacture under Section 2(f)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was applied to hold that, for biris, labelling and packing formed part of the completion process. The earlier High Court decision relied on by the appellants was distinguished because it dealt with licence and procedural requirements for rolled biris and recognised such goods as semi-finished for movement under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules, rather than deciding duty liability on the same facts.

Conclusion: The biris not labelled and packed before 1-1-1982 were not treated as manufactured goods already exempt from cess, and the claim for refund failed.

---