JUDGMENT : After having heard Counsel at some length we are inclined to think that the state of evidence in each of these appeals leaves several gap areas. We, therefore, think it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders of the High Courts and remit the matters to the High Courts for disposal of the Writ Petitions afresh. Parties should however have an opportunity to lead evidence, both oral and documentary, on certain precise questions of fact which have a bearing on the construction and application of the relevant items in the tariff under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In the facts and circumstances of these cases and having regard to the items in question, we think it is appropriate to direct evidence to be tendered on the following questions : (i) Whether `package tea' is a distinct variety of tea, different from other varieties and is commercially known as such? (ii) Is blending tea a manufacturing activity? If yes, what is its effect? (iii) Is there any reason for making a distinction between packages weighing 27 kgs. or less and those weighing in excess thereof? 2. The Collector, Central Excise (Judicial), Calcutta may record evidence, both oral and documentary, relevant to answering the aforesaid questions and submit a report to the concerned High Court. This report will be merely of assistance to the High Courts and not binding on them. In other words, the High Courts would be free on the basis of the evidence tendered before the Collector, Central Excise (Judicial) to reach its own conclusion on the aforesaid questions and thereafter dispose of the writ petitions afresh on the basis of its findings. The parties will be at liberty to urge all the points that they consider relevant before the High Courts. Having regard to passage of time we expect the Collector of Central Excise (Judicial) as well as the High Courts to dispose of the matters as early as possible. 3. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.