Manufacturer status under excise law depends on control and independence, not mere supply of materials and specifications.

Supplying raw materials, drawings and specifications to another unit did not, by itself, make the appellants the manufacturer of electrical stampings and laminations under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Where the second unit was an independent concern and there was no finding that it was a dummy or sham unit, production carried out exclusively for the appellants on fabrication charges did not shift manufacturer status to them. The goods were therefore treated as not manufactured by the appellants for excise purposes, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were the manufacturers of the electrical stampings and laminations within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The appellants supplied the raw material, drawings and specifications to the second unit, but the second unit was an independent concern and there was no finding that it was a dummy or sham unit. The production was made exclusively for the appellants on fabrication charges, and the surrounding facts were held to be similar to the earlier decision of the Madras High Court. The circumstance that the appellants supplied raw material and specifications did not, by itself, make them the manufacturer in the absence of proof that the second unit acted only as their dummy.

Conclusion: The appellants were not the real manufacturers of the goods for the purpose of Section 2(f), and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---