Actual manufacturer doctrine and Rule 9A(5) applied to club clearances, sustain duty, penalty and confiscation.

Corrugated boxes manufactured in the appellant's factory were held to be the appellant's own clearances because the alleged job-work arrangement was not accepted as genuine; mere supply of raw material by another concern did not shift manufacturer status, so the full clearances had to be counted for exemption under Notification No. 89/79. Where proper excise accounts and clearance formalities were not maintained, Rule 9A(5) was applied and duty was chargeable at the rate prevailing on the date of payment. The dubious manufacturing arrangement also supported penalty and confiscation of the machinery, though the redemption fine was reduced on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the clearances of corrugated boxes manufactured in the appellant's factory on the alleged job-work arrangement with another concern were to be clubbed with the appellant's own clearances for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 89/79; (ii) whether duty on the disputed clearances was chargeable at the rate applicable on the date of removal or at the rate applicable on the date of payment under Rule 9A; (iii) whether penalty and confiscation of plant and machinery were justified, and if so, whether the redemption fine required reduction.

Issue (i): whether the clearances of corrugated boxes manufactured in the appellant's factory on the alleged job-work arrangement with another concern were to be clubbed with the appellant's own clearances for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 89/79

Analysis: The arrangement between the two concerns was not accepted as genuine job work. The appellant's own partner's statement showed that the appellant's factory was the place where corrugated boxes were actually manufactured, and the later temporary change in arrangement, followed by a return to the earlier method, was treated as showing that the appellant remained the actual manufacturer. Mere supply of raw material by another concern did not make that concern the manufacturer. For exemption purposes, the full value of the corrugated boxes manufactured in the appellant's factory had to be taken into account, and the claim that only job-work value should be considered was rejected.

Conclusion: The clearances were rightly clubbed and the appellant was not entitled to the claimed exemption on the reduced basis.

Issue (ii): whether duty on the disputed clearances was chargeable at the rate applicable on the date of removal or at the rate applicable on the date of payment under Rule 9A

Analysis: As the appellant had not maintained proper accounts showing dates of clearance and the goods had not been cleared in accordance with the prescribed excise formalities, the Tribunal applied Rule 9A(5). On that basis, the rate prevailing on the date of payment governed the demand rather than the earlier rate relied upon by the appellant.

Conclusion: The duty demand was sustainable at the rate applied by the Department.

Issue (iii): whether penalty and confiscation of plant and machinery were justified, and if so, whether the redemption fine required reduction

Analysis: The manufacturing arrangement was treated as a dubious method adopted to avoid duty. That finding supported the levy of penalty and the confiscation provisions invoked against the machinery used in the clandestine manufacture. However, considering that a separate penalty had already been imposed, the redemption fine for release of the machinery was viewed as excessive and was reduced.

Conclusion: Penalty and confiscation were upheld, but the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,000.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction in the redemption fine, while the duty demand, penalty, and confiscation were otherwise maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption and clearance-limit purposes, the actual manufacturer is the unit where manufacture is carried out, and a mere supply of raw material does not convert the supplier into the manufacturer; where proper excise formalities and clearance records are absent, Rule 9A(5) may govern the duty rate, and deliberate evasion can justify penalty and confiscation, subject to moderation of the redemption fine on the facts.

---