Principal-to-principal subcontract fabrication: sub-contractor treated as manufacturer, leaving the principal contractor outside excise liability.

Fabrication of G.I. ducts carried out by an independent sub-contractor on a principal-to-principal basis, using its own machinery, was treated as manufacture by the sub-contractor for central excise purposes. The contract documents and the prior Tribunal finding on the same project showed that the work was not done as hired labour for the principal contractor. Applying that earlier reasoning to the same factual matrix, the principal contractor was not the manufacturer and could not be proceeded against as such; the excise proceedings against it were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was the manufacturer of the fabricated G.I. ducts for central excise purposes, or whether the sub-contractor was the manufacturer on a principal-to-principal basis, so as to render the proceedings against the appellant unsustainable.

Analysis: The contract documents and the earlier Tribunal order relating to the same project work showed that the fabrication activity was undertaken by the sub-contractor on a principal-to-principal basis and not as hired labour. The prior decision had already found that the sub-contractor used its own machinery and was the real manufacturer of the ducts. As the present case arose from the same contractual arrangement and the same factual matrix, that reasoning applied equally here.

Conclusion: The appellant was not the manufacturer and could not be proceeded against as such; the sub-contractor was the manufacturer.

Final Conclusion: The excise proceedings against the appellant were unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where fabrication is carried out by an independent sub-contractor on a principal-to-principal basis with its own machinery, the sub-contractor is the manufacturer for excise purposes and the principal contractor is not liable as the manufacturer.

---