Trader not treated as manufacturer for job-work processed fabrics; procedural lapse alone did not create duty liability.

Duty demand could not be sustained against a trader where the accepted facts showed it dealt in processed man-made fabrics and either got grey fabrics processed through independent job workers or purchased processed fabrics from wholesale traders. On the Revenue's own case, the goods were manufactured on behalf of the trader by job workers, and mere non-compliance with the job-work procedure did not make the trader the manufacturer. The demand therefore failed because manufacturer status, and the resulting duty liability, did not attach to the respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand could be sustained against a trader on the footing that the seized processed man-made fabrics were manufactured by the trader's job workers, despite the trader not being the manufacturer of the goods.

Analysis: The accepted factual position was that the respondent dealt in processed man-made fabrics and either got grey fabrics processed through independent job workers or purchased processed fabrics from wholesale traders. That finding was not challenged. On the Revenue's own case, the goods were manufactured on behalf of the respondent by job workers. Mere non-compliance with the procedure for sending goods to job workers did not convert the respondent into the manufacturer or create duty liability against it.

Conclusion: The duty demand was not sustainable against the respondent, as it was not the manufacturer of the seized man-made fabrics.

---