Real manufacturer test under central excise excludes a professional who only designs and supervises goods production.

A professional who only designed and supervised the making of office furniture was not the real manufacturer for central excise purposes, because the company supplied the materials, labour and payment and retained ownership of the furniture. The article states that manufacture under excise law requires the person to be the actual producer of the goods, and that a mere design-and-supervision role does not create manufacturer liability. Accordingly, the duty demand could not be fastened on the architect, and the related confiscation and connected proceedings could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the architect, who only designed and supervised the making of office furniture while the materials, labour and payment were provided by the company, could be treated as the manufacturer liable to central excise duty; and whether confiscation and duty demand could validly be raised against him.

Analysis: Manufacture under central excise law requires the person to be the real producer of the goods. On the facts, the architect only rendered professional services by designing, coordinating and supervising the work. The essential factors of production were supplied by the company, and the relationship was not that of a principal and job worker. The furniture belonged to the company, and the demand for duty was made on a person who was not the manufacturer or owner. Once the duty demand itself was wrongly fastened on the architect, the confiscation and connected proceedings against him could not stand.

Conclusion: The architect was not the manufacturer and was not liable for the central excise duty demand or the confiscation order.

Ratio Decidendi: A professional who merely designs and supervises the making of goods, without supplying the materials or undertaking production as the real manufacturer, cannot be treated as the manufacturer for central excise purposes.

---